If I had any personal gripes with Sony,it would be because of their 'business tactics' in the past with things mentioned by Westley here. Westley made mention of the 'battery issue', but what he did not mention was Sony's bad judgment in the past concerning rootkits.
Sure, Sony's motivation for installing 'software' on a system without the users knowledge may have had to do with protecting their IP(DRM), but I have to question any company who deems they have the right to take control of any system that does not belong to them. Also, for those who may think that this is no big deal, keep in mind that even USB thumb drives, etc have their own MAC address.
What does this mean to the end user you may ask ? This means that anyone of us *could* potentially be locked out of the hardware that we payed hard earned cash for at the whim of a company who obviously has serious moral issues.
Thankfully Mark Russinovich caught this back in 2005, but it took several class action suits, and a court order that made Sony pay up $150 to each affected individual before they stopped shipping the CDs(almost two years later).
Now onto the subject of lenses. Zeiss also makes Nikon glass, but according to Ken Rockwell (heh yeah I know . . .) Zeiss actually does not make these lenses(some other company in Japan does), and most of, or all of these are MF. Ken Rockwell then goes on to say - "When photographers want quality they use larger format cameras, not 35 mm. " Nothing he says here really matters to me. All I care about is how well any given lens I purchase performs. I suppose the part he mentions going to a different format for quality does sort of make sense, but since I am not a 'professional photographer', my Nikon DSLR will just have to do . . . The thing is though, Zeiss is not the end all be all of lenses, and other manufactures make good lenses as well (Nikon for one).
I did the research more than 1.5 years ago when purchasing my first DSLR, and at that time, there just was not a broad enough lens selection available for the Alpha 100. Obviously I decided against it(and I do have my reasons), but with shooting pictures with a decent DSLR, I am finding that knowing how to use a camera in the first place makes more of a difference than the 'quality' of equipment used.
In the meantime, while the latest Alpha may have some desirable features, and can use some seemingly nice glass. I think I would have to pass on the 'latest flavor' of the month. Also seems to be yet another company who can not get it into their heads that the 'big MP penis' *thing* was a last year and before trend. While this year savvy photographers have been asking for, and want more dynamic range . . .
Yes. Right now, most of Sony's lenses are old, and not intended for digital sensors. There are a few Zeiss lenses, which are certainly good, though not quite up to the standard of their third party offerings for Nikon, and now Canon. But their Sony models do auto focussing, which the Nikon and Canon models do not.
It's surprising that their sony models, at the prices that they sell for are not weather sealed as Canon and Nikon's own lenses are.
1. Sony have made it very clear all through the A900 development that they do not consider the A900 a Pro body (albeit capable of being used by a Pro).
I guess a proper Pro body (or several) comes later if they decide that they really want to seriously target that market.
2. the reason that there is no increase in burst speed in APS-C mode is that Minolta/KM & now Sony have never had a shutter/mirror mechanism that can do more than 5fps i.e. it's the shutter that is the limiting factor not the image processing abilities.
3. batteries - yes, it's dear compared to generics but it's no dearer than equivalent Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax genuine batteries.
& I've got to say that it's a great battery in terms of performance so I don't need as many.
Sony is an Industry standard in broadcasting with their video cameras, expect it to become a reference standard in photography as time passes. They have the engineering power to solve problems, and almost an unlimited budget to make things happen. They are the freshman in the SLR market and already making good decisions, it's only a matter of time before they get all of it right. The other question to factor in is how the photo industry will accept Sony as a future industry standard. Artist and photographers tend to stick with what they know and love. Lets see how their incredible marketing team handles that. It might be Sony take over, PS3 stile.
Only time will tell.
Looks interresting, but there are a few things that stops me from buying right now. First, it's the first of its kind in a new breed from Sony. Some functions and engineering is just great, while some other seems premature or even absent. Onther big backlash is the batteries. I don't wanna end up with a "Sony-only" choice of battery source. I have have a friend that is tied to the Sony batt-packs, and he claims it is really a pain in the ass.
For now on, I'll probably wait until Nikon or Canon turns up with a similar 24 MP unit, just because of what I mentioned.
Actually, the entire range of Konica-Minolta engineers are in Sony's employ and you cannot get any more expertise than that, from a photography perspective, regardless of manufacturer. As far as electronics and sensor technology is concerned, Sony has been doing that for a while, including as a supplier to Nikon.
Bottomline, in the "DSLR", the "D" aspect is covered through Sony's own expertise/know-how and the "SLR" aspect is covered through the prior Konica-Minolta engineers.
I would not have too much concern about Sony being new to this field.
They did have some mis-steps when the A700 was initially released one year back, by applying NR onto RAW (BAD in my book) but they have completely reversed course, with the upcoming release on Sept.16th, of Firmware Ver.4, which completely changes things for the better.
Now the RAW files are virgin-untampered-RAW-files (with the NR-OFF setting) and is unbelievably detailed even at ISO 6400 and seemingly has even more luminance data in it than its peer, the Nikon D300 (which shares roughly the same sensor).
I suppose if you have already decided to buy Canon or Nikon then waiting for Phil's side-by-side makes sense. You can always be sure Canon or Nikon will be the winner in Phil's reviews. And dpreview and their parent Amazon are obviously paying me nothing.
It has been generally seen that Phil favours his Nikons and Canons over something "different", such as a Sony. Cameras that are technically stronger but are of the "different" nameplate earn lower final ratings than a camera from one of the proven stablemates.
Flash that Makes L Brackets Obsolete - Fortunes have been made with L brackets for pro cameras that enable shooting flash vertical with the flash also rotated 90 degrees. When you see the new Sony HVL-F58AM flash, you'll wonder why Sony - or you, or anyone else - didn't think of it sooner. The flash head turns smoothly in a 90 degree arc as one of its movements - aligning the flash perfectly for portrait mode. Goodbye L bracket.
Sorry, quote funtion wouldn't work. Why is this an issue? Flashes for the longest time do something really easy to bounce or flash vertically in portrait mode. It's called they rotate horizontally. The only advantage here I suppose is that the back display is now easier to read facing up. Am I missing something here?
I was thinking the same... this moves the flash a little closer in line with the lens.. but l brackets still have one huge advantage... it RAISES the flash up, which can be quite beneficial in itself.
It's interesting that both Canon's 5D, and Nikon's D700 cameras are considered to be, even by their manufacturers, advanced amateur or semi-pro bodies, but at the same price level, the Sony 900 is considered to be professional, ala the Canon 1Ds, 1D, and Nikon D3.
Sorry, this camera isn't built like those pro bodies from Canon and Nikon.
While pro's certainly use the 5D, and D700, they also use the 40D and the D300.
So, are those now pro bodies as well?
Sensor size doesn't determine whether a body is pro, and really, neither does weather sealing.
The 1Ds 1D, and D3 are certainly the most rugged bodies on the market, nothing else approaches them in this.
The Canon 5D and Nikon D700 have 95% wiewfinders. So do the D300 and 40D. The Nikon D3, Canon 1Ds MkIII, AND Sony A900 all have 100% viewfinders. That is certainly one measure of a Pro camera.
In comparing the build quality of the A900 to my D3 I did not find the A900 lacking. Of course the test of time is what matters most in evaluating build quality and it will take a while to see if the build is as rugged as it appears.
I assumed the grip would be an Achilles heel since the other Pro models have a built-in grip. However, the A900 grip uses the same magnesium alloy shell and sealing used on the a900. Still, an integrated grip would certainly be better sealed almost by definition. Frankly I prefer a grip I can leave at home if I choose. The true Pro models that fit your criteria are all a pain to lug around in the field. That's why my D4 stays at home sometimes and the D700 goes with me.
In the end I have no doubt the Sony is as well constructed as the other cameras you judge as Pro. I do, however, have reservations about a shutter that is only rated for 100,000 actuations. That is very low for a camera to be considered Pro, and is much more typical of semi-Pro or Advanced prosumer models.
Big deal. Over the years, the Nikon F series had a 100% viewfinder. That didn't prevent Canon from knocking it off it;s top spot, even though Canon didn't consider that to be important.
In fact, for many years, a 100% viewfinder was considered to be a negative. When we shot transparencies, the mount covered the millimeter around the outside edge of the slide, making what you saw no more than about 96% of the total. Using a 100% viewfinder often caused the mount to hide the edge of what you saw anyway.
Nowadays, it;s true, that doesn't matter, but 2 to 5% of the viewfinders outside edges is of no real noticeable importance if its less than the full frame. The problem would be the other way around.
I think the shutter is far more important in telling us what this camera is intended for than whatever else we can see from the outside. Can't judge a camera by its shell. Even the 5D II now has a 150,000 cycle shutter.
The D300 has a 100% viewfinder. However, at $3000 for the D700, they could have easily used the same from D3... but more than likely did not to protect sales of D3.
Obviously, an APS-C 100% viewfinder is only 42% of the size of a Full-frame viewfinder at equivalent magnification. That is a point one has to really keep in mind.
Note that the 100% viewfinder at 0.74x magnification, is larger than the viewfinders in the Nikon D3 or the Nikon D700 or the Canon 1DSMKII or the Canon 5D.
In fact, the Sony A900's viewfinder is the 2nd largest Viewfinder EVER, in any DSLR, with the $8000 Canon 1DSMKIII slightly edging it out in size. Note that the precision assembly required and the tighter manufacturing tolerances in a 100% viewfinder, makes it head-and-shoulders above even a 95% viewfinder.
The viewfinder sizes are as below:
Nikon D3: 100% VF with 0.7x magnification
Nikon D700: 95% VF with 0.72X magnification
Canon 5D: 96% VF with 0.71x magnification
Canon 1DSMKII: 100% with 0.7x magnification
Canon 1DSMKIII: 100% VF with 0.76x magnification
Kudos to Sony for getting this in at such a price and specification. Coupled with the fact that only the Sony Full-frame will have stabilized 35mm primes, 50mm primes, 85mm primes, 135mm primes, along with a stabilized 16-35 f/2.8, a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 etc., makes this a VERY appealing product.
I personally DEFINITELY intend to "vote" for this with my money.
Also note that the Sony Full-RAW files are around 40MB in size, per file, when it comes to the A900.
So when shooting RAW at 5FPS, that is around 200MB of image data PER second.
When shooting RAW+JPEG at 5FPS, we need to add another 100MB to the above number, thus taking us to 300MB of data PER SECOND.
What the above means is that the data pipeline architecture needed to support 24.6MP of resolution at 5FPS, is literally equivalent to the data pipeline architecture of MUCH pricier products like the 1DSMKIII and the Nikon D3. This is WAY superior to the architecture in products like the Nikon D700 or the Canon 5D (current version).
Also, dpreview tests show that the A700 is WRITING to the CF-card at around 37MB/Sec, when tested with a 40MB/Sec Sandisk Extreme IV card (max speed: 40MB/Sec). In other words, the A700 is WRITING to the card at almost the full speed of a 266x 40MB/Sec UDMA card. I would assume that with a 300x 45MB/Sec card, it very well might have broken the 40MB/Sec write-to-card speed barrier.
When mentioning the above write-to-card speeds, I need to point out that the above speeds are faster than any other dSLR, regardless of cost. It is faster than the Canon 1DSMKIII, 1DMKIII, Nikon D3, Nikon D300, Nikon D700 etc. Only the Nikon D3/D300 come relatively close to the A700's write-to-CF-card speed.
I would not be surprised if the A900 is even faster, if we employ a 45MB/SEC 300X card to test its write-to-card speed.
I would venture that Sony is employing the full power of its electronics expertise in their high-end pro/semi-pro level cameras.
is there any data on 1D mkIII write speeds? because based on more important things, like frames per second, color depth, etc, cameras like the 1d mkIII and nikon d3 have to write pretty damn fast. . i know write speed to card is part of the pipeline, but as long as the camera writes fast enough to keep up with its rated specs, i don't see why write speed is such a huge deal
A catalog photographer at the Sony presentation has been shooting with the A900 for several weeks. He was a Canon 1Ds Mark III user He also was a user for many years of Hasselblads with Zeiss glass and digital backs. The Zeiss lenses were a big part of his move to Sony.
This same photographer quoted the largest capture file size as 68MB, but your 40MB is much closer to the published specs in the A900 brochure. Those charts show a 4GB card can capture 105 full RAW files or 157 cRAW.
I suspect the PRO was referring to the file size of a finished TIFF saved from processing a RAW image since he mentioned he used Capture One for most of his PP. Frankly I didn't know Capture One supported the A700 until he assured us he had used it for his PP with the A700. Capture One will also apparently support the A900 by the time it is shipping. Since the program is widely used by Pros that will be important to many.
The biggest draw for me are the Zeiss AF lenses in the Sony range, too. Specifically the CZ 85mm f/1.4 Planar, the CZ 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar, the CZ 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar and the 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar. I already have the 85mm and the 24-70 f/2.8 with me and will add the 135 (shortly) and the 16-35 f/2.8 when it becomes available.
There were some rumors that there is also an upcoming Carl Zeiss 70-200 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar, which if true, would provide f/2.8 from 16mm to 200mm. This lens is rumored to replace the current 70-200 f/2.8G SSM (from the Konica-Minolta era).
Sony does not target this at Pros. It's officially semi-pro, and they said "it's a camera that even pros might want to use".
And have you held it? Used it? I have. It's build is so seriously solid it impressed a die-hard D3 user. Don't dismiss the ruggedness of this body, when even the lower-spec A700 survived in conditions the Canon 1Ds-MkIII died in.
They are calling it a pro body here. That's what I'm talking about.
And thats pure BS about the A700 vs the 1Ds. I've used the 1Ds and you could use it as a hammer to smash the A700 to a pancake, then go out to shoot some sports.
Hm ,I do remember last year that I heard about shooting video and choosing 1 fram as digital still from SOny CEO himself. I don't know whether it is his idea or he heard from someone else. But Sony has stated that it won't put feature that is not ready. I am sure it has cross Sony's mind. Also they are one that among the first develop sensor that can take 120fps but at lower resolution. You have to understand that this 24MP create about 15MB per frame. If your video is 24fps then does the CF available now is big enough? Also don't tell me that SOny should allow lower HDTV 1920x1080 pixel video and hope that you can extract one frame of it and sell it to newspaper. They will laugh at it, newspaper / magazine needs at least 6-12MP pictures before they consider to publish it. Also if you want video then buy videocam instead. I imagine using liveview (or using the sensor for video) will shorten the live of the sensor itself. Whay would I want to do that?
I think people willing to pay 3k for a camera;
#1 Dont care about 100$ battery. (wtf?)
#2 Could get something better for a bit more if they want new.
#3 Something better for less if they buy used.
#4 Nikon and Cannon will come out with something better for less in a matter of a few months.
"Full frame" is great, but all it does is get rid of crop factoron 35mm cameras. What happeneds when CCDs get bigger? They will need to, becuse no matter what technology the camera has in it, SnR is going to be better at lower MP resolutions on the same size CCD. 24MP sounds fantastic, but noice reduction does not always equate to added detail. The only real way to get more detail, is to actualy replace noise with information and the real only wat to do that is to make the CCD bigger or make the pixelsites bigger.
Nice preview of a very interesting camera. I did notice several times you mentioned the Sony as being twice the resolution as the D3/5D which is not accurate. It has twice the pixels but you need 4x the pixels to truly double a sensors resolving power.
This camera should shake up the industry on the high end. I can't see Canikon shooters ditching their current investments and going with Sony because of this cam, but at the very least the era of high resolution FF cameras costing as much as a new compact car is over. Bravo Sony.
Yea the Canon costs more than 2x as much. However, if history has its say, Canon will trickle down the viewfinder like it did from the Canon 1Ds mkII to the 5D (0.70x in the 1Ds mkII and 0.71x in the 5D). Whatever Canon has up its sleeve, its likely a full frame, and hopefully Canon users will get a nice large viewfinder in whatever the followup to the 5D is.
As for the bump in fps rate with cropped lenses like Nikon does, apparently this is due to a lens design decision by Minolta. The aperture arm must travel a much more significant distance compared to the aperture arms in Nikon's lenses. This physical requirement alone is likely what is limiting all of Sony's DSLRs to 5fps maximum.
I shot several images with DT lenses and the A900 crop factor worked perfectly. You can also manually force DT, even on a full-frame lens. With that capability, and an 11 megapixel image size in crop mode, a faster shooting speed would have been an incredible feature. The Nikon 5 megapixel crop-mode image is OK for newspaper but too small for some things. An 11 megapixel crop is a lot more interesting.
The point of an L bracket is to get the flash above the lens regardless of camera orientation. This new flash still has the flash offset to the side, so you still need a bracket if you want to move your flash over top of your lens.
There are some cases where an in-line flash is more desirable, but for most situations where photographers use a flash the Sony 90 degree turn will accomplish just what the photographer is looking for when he attaches an L bracket.
I bought a Nikon F75 as my first SLR after some long search and decision making. Then a few days after it's arrival I learned about the Minolta Dynx 7 and regreted my decision. A few months later I had the opportunity to actualy shoot with a Minolta 7D and I was even more unhappy.
Now with this new Sony, I am close to tears. The Nikons I have are solid cameras, I do not complain there, however any Nikon camera close to this Alpha sensor will cost a fortune which I cannot afford. The A900 seems like a quality and "cheap" camera.
More than likely same MP in sensor, but same or better outstanding ISO performance as D3.
I've never held a Sony DSLR yet, but question the build quality. Additionally, I find it interesting that when other camera companies market their cameras, they almost always exclusively show the pics taken with them, but no cameras inside those pictures as subjects. Sony on the other hand releases pictures "in the wild" of people using the camera almost as models. Check out http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12902">http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12902
Sony announced the A900 with both studio setups surrounded with 2x3 feet enlargements of images taken with the A900. The brochure for the A900 is around 8x12" and filled with double page photos(12x16 inches). Both studio setups were tethered to huge Bravia HD TVs. The photographers in both settings were shooting, displaying on screen and doing 6.5x zooms to show detail. A large number of A900 cameras were available for us to shoot both scenes.
In the Sony A900 launch event the emphasis was clearly on images captured with the the A900. As for build quality you should examine an A900 to answer your questions about build quality. Feel and Build Quality certainly appear superb. I also own a D3 and D700 and the Sony A900 belongs in that league IMHO.
I sold my D300 and all my DX lenses when I went for the D3/D700, and I particularly like the size, capabilities. and value of the D700. I also own other cameras and have some lenses for every system we review since they are needed for testing.
My main APS-C since the exit of the D300 is the Sony A700 which is the same sensor and LCD as the D300, but obviously not the same electronics/post processing as the Nikon. Sony has continued to improve their post-processing and finally have the option to turn off NR completely in RAW with firmware 4. JPEGs are also further improved in 4. THe A700 is very nice with the in-body IS that works with lenses like the Tamron 18-250mm (or Sony 18-250mm), which is a really terrific lens for when I need small and compact.
I am also testing a Sony A200 right now, which at less than $500 for camera with body IS and 18-70mm kit lens is looking like a heck of a buy.
"Same Pricey Battery- The same proprietary NP-FM500H battery used in the A700, A350, A300, and A200 is also used in the A900. Great consistency, but you can still only buy it from Sony and you will still pay $55 to $95 for a spare. Sony insists on pimping their battery manufacturing even if their stubborn insistence on a proprietary battery drives some users away in a market where they need to win new users."
Oh come on!
Thats like saying someone who buys a Ferrari worries that it takes premium fuel.
The less than $500 A200 kit uses the same battery as the A900, which is great consistency. Frankly so did the A100, but you could buy generic A100 batteries if you chose for less than $8. When Sony introduced the A700 they added a groove to the center of the battery so A100 batteries would no longer fit and apparently patent4ed the revised design. In fact A100 chargers still work just fine with the new Sony A700/A900/A350/A300/A200 battery.
Many would definitely stick with the manufacturer's battery, but my complaint is about choice. I can choose which battery with Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus batteries as generic options are readily available. You can not choose another battery with any of the new Sony cameras. Sony is a huge battery maker and they have locked up choice. You are forced to buy the Sony overpriced battery as there are no other choices in the market.
As an aside Sony STILL will not allow the use of AA batteries in their grips. Many like the versatility of using rechargeable AAs to power their grips instead and other companies include the AA insert or offer it as an option. There is also the issue of flexibility. If you get caught with a dead proprietary battery in the field it is reassuring to know you can continue shooting with AAs that are readily available anywhere - but that is not an option with Sony DSLR cameras.
I've mentioned this before - the battery incorporates InfoLithium technology which relays exact info in terms of a percentage remaining, instead of a graphic battery meter with five different levels. This feature is fantastic and is worth the money (to me).
Serious question now, does Nikon's battery in the D300/D700/D3 relay that same percentage info even if you get a generic battery? I know that you have to dive deep into a menu to get that information.
The D300/D700 use the same EN-EL3e battery as the D80, which does not provide a percentage. With optional accessories you can add the BL-4(a) high capcity battery to the MB-D10 battery grip and it does indeed report the percentage - at least when charging and on the D3. That battery though is 2500mAh and not the lower capacity 16500mAh of the Sony battery.
Generics for the EN-EL3e used in the D700 and D300 generally perform the same and there are many with higher capacity and longer life. The EN-EL4(a) used in the D3 and D2x is tougher for finding generic replacements. Some I have seen do work but it is much more a question mark than the 3e and the generics generally don't report percent.
The Sony NP-FM500H charges just fine to 100% in the old chargers for the A100, but the groove prevents them fitting in any of this generation Sony cameras. The Info-Lithium is useful to me but it is not worth the 700% to 1200% premium to me that Sony charges for the FM500H compared the generics. I appreciate that it is worth it to you, but I would prefer to be able to use some of the 2000mAh batteries I used with the A100.
The memory stick is so that you have the ability to shoot RAW+JPG. It's just for redundancy in case your compact flash card dies for whatever reason. All is not lost since the JPEGs can be saved on the MS like the a700.
On the a700 you can only shoot to one memory card or the other at any given time. When set to RAW+JPEG, it doesn't send one file to one card and the other file to the other card (that option is not even available). It would be neat if it did, though, since I could have used that feature with my a700 when doing a wedding shoot back in June. The camera also doesn't automatically switch over to the other card when the first card is full, you have to go into the menu and switch it over manually. The a900, from reading a preview on another site, does the exact same thing in regards to memory card management as the a700 (which is a bit of a shame).
As for the use of a memory stick and CF, I can understand the con with this since if you want to have a fall back memory card you have to deal with two different memory card formats. But the advantage to it, though, is a smaller camera profile since two CF card slots would require a little more room.
Below are some features I wish my a700 did (as well as the new a900) in regards to its two memory card slots:
-Automatic switchover when the first card is full.
-Option to have RAW files go to one card and a JPEG version go to the other card.
-Backup mode where ever picture shot is copied (in the same file format) to both cards.
Shame they don't do this. But oh well, the a700 is still a great camera. And with the new firmware that got leaked out earlier this week (v.4), it's an even better camera since they added some features to the a700 that are in the a900. Some of these improvements are: High ISO NR can now be turned off (used to be you can go no further than LOW), Image quality algorithms have been improved with NR on and off (finer grain pattern in high ISO shots, no more watercolor NR), EV bracketing now has a +/- 2 option for HDR shooting, and some people are reporting WB has improved in certain lighting. Their maybe more improvements, but since it was leaked with no update readme (and was quickly removed from the site too when it was discovered), the only improvements mentioned are what people have found after installing it. Supposedly, the official release of the firmware update is sometime next week (the 16th is what I am hearing). Probably so as to not steal the a900's thunder.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
Back to Article
yyrkoon - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
If I had any personal gripes with Sony,it would be because of their 'business tactics' in the past with things mentioned by Westley here. Westley made mention of the 'battery issue', but what he did not mention was Sony's bad judgment in the past concerning rootkits.Sure, Sony's motivation for installing 'software' on a system without the users knowledge may have had to do with protecting their IP(DRM), but I have to question any company who deems they have the right to take control of any system that does not belong to them. Also, for those who may think that this is no big deal, keep in mind that even USB thumb drives, etc have their own MAC address.
What does this mean to the end user you may ask ? This means that anyone of us *could* potentially be locked out of the hardware that we payed hard earned cash for at the whim of a company who obviously has serious moral issues.
Thankfully Mark Russinovich caught this back in 2005, but it took several class action suits, and a court order that made Sony pay up $150 to each affected individual before they stopped shipping the CDs(almost two years later).
Now onto the subject of lenses. Zeiss also makes Nikon glass, but according to Ken Rockwell (heh yeah I know . . .) Zeiss actually does not make these lenses(some other company in Japan does), and most of, or all of these are MF. Ken Rockwell then goes on to say - "When photographers want quality they use larger format cameras, not 35 mm. " Nothing he says here really matters to me. All I care about is how well any given lens I purchase performs. I suppose the part he mentions going to a different format for quality does sort of make sense, but since I am not a 'professional photographer', my Nikon DSLR will just have to do . . . The thing is though, Zeiss is not the end all be all of lenses, and other manufactures make good lenses as well (Nikon for one).
I did the research more than 1.5 years ago when purchasing my first DSLR, and at that time, there just was not a broad enough lens selection available for the Alpha 100. Obviously I decided against it(and I do have my reasons), but with shooting pictures with a decent DSLR, I am finding that knowing how to use a camera in the first place makes more of a difference than the 'quality' of equipment used.
In the meantime, while the latest Alpha may have some desirable features, and can use some seemingly nice glass. I think I would have to pass on the 'latest flavor' of the month. Also seems to be yet another company who can not get it into their heads that the 'big MP penis' *thing* was a last year and before trend. While this year savvy photographers have been asking for, and want more dynamic range . . .
melgross - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Yes. Right now, most of Sony's lenses are old, and not intended for digital sensors. There are a few Zeiss lenses, which are certainly good, though not quite up to the standard of their third party offerings for Nikon, and now Canon. But their Sony models do auto focussing, which the Nikon and Canon models do not.It's surprising that their sony models, at the prices that they sell for are not weather sealed as Canon and Nikon's own lenses are.
Heidfirst - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
1. Sony have made it very clear all through the A900 development that they do not consider the A900 a Pro body (albeit capable of being used by a Pro).I guess a proper Pro body (or several) comes later if they decide that they really want to seriously target that market.
2. the reason that there is no increase in burst speed in APS-C mode is that Minolta/KM & now Sony have never had a shutter/mirror mechanism that can do more than 5fps i.e. it's the shutter that is the limiting factor not the image processing abilities.
3. batteries - yes, it's dear compared to generics but it's no dearer than equivalent Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax genuine batteries.
& I've got to say that it's a great battery in terms of performance so I don't need as many.
Keepitpro - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
Sony is an Industry standard in broadcasting with their video cameras, expect it to become a reference standard in photography as time passes. They have the engineering power to solve problems, and almost an unlimited budget to make things happen. They are the freshman in the SLR market and already making good decisions, it's only a matter of time before they get all of it right. The other question to factor in is how the photo industry will accept Sony as a future industry standard. Artist and photographers tend to stick with what they know and love. Lets see how their incredible marketing team handles that. It might be Sony take over, PS3 stile.Only time will tell.
Milleman - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
Looks interresting, but there are a few things that stops me from buying right now. First, it's the first of its kind in a new breed from Sony. Some functions and engineering is just great, while some other seems premature or even absent. Onther big backlash is the batteries. I don't wanna end up with a "Sony-only" choice of battery source. I have have a friend that is tied to the Sony batt-packs, and he claims it is really a pain in the ass.For now on, I'll probably wait until Nikon or Canon turns up with a similar 24 MP unit, just because of what I mentioned.
roweraay - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
Actually, the entire range of Konica-Minolta engineers are in Sony's employ and you cannot get any more expertise than that, from a photography perspective, regardless of manufacturer. As far as electronics and sensor technology is concerned, Sony has been doing that for a while, including as a supplier to Nikon.Bottomline, in the "DSLR", the "D" aspect is covered through Sony's own expertise/know-how and the "SLR" aspect is covered through the prior Konica-Minolta engineers.
I would not have too much concern about Sony being new to this field.
They did have some mis-steps when the A700 was initially released one year back, by applying NR onto RAW (BAD in my book) but they have completely reversed course, with the upcoming release on Sept.16th, of Firmware Ver.4, which completely changes things for the better.
Now the RAW files are virgin-untampered-RAW-files (with the NR-OFF setting) and is unbelievably detailed even at ISO 6400 and seemingly has even more luminance data in it than its peer, the Nikon D300 (which shares roughly the same sensor).
chiew - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
how much is sony paying you ;)i'm going to wait for some side by side comparisons by phil askey, etc before putting my money into something that isn't even on the market yet.
rjm55 - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
I suppose if you have already decided to buy Canon or Nikon then waiting for Phil's side-by-side makes sense. You can always be sure Canon or Nikon will be the winner in Phil's reviews. And dpreview and their parent Amazon are obviously paying me nothing.chiew - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
are you saying you are more qualified to compare cameras side by side than phil or any other site's reviewers? dpreview was just one site i mentionedKorruptioN - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
It has been generally seen that Phil favours his Nikons and Canons over something "different", such as a Sony. Cameras that are technically stronger but are of the "different" nameplate earn lower final ratings than a camera from one of the proven stablemates.sprockkets - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
Flash that Makes L Brackets Obsolete - Fortunes have been made with L brackets for pro cameras that enable shooting flash vertical with the flash also rotated 90 degrees. When you see the new Sony HVL-F58AM flash, you'll wonder why Sony - or you, or anyone else - didn't think of it sooner. The flash head turns smoothly in a 90 degree arc as one of its movements - aligning the flash perfectly for portrait mode. Goodbye L bracket.Sorry, quote funtion wouldn't work. Why is this an issue? Flashes for the longest time do something really easy to bounce or flash vertically in portrait mode. It's called they rotate horizontally. The only advantage here I suppose is that the back display is now easier to read facing up. Am I missing something here?
Maxington - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
I was wondering the same thing about the Sony flash, exactly what is so special about it?I can do ceiling bounce flash holding the camera in portrait with my Pentax 540 flash, and that's been out for years.
What is this Sony flash doing that has everyone so excited?
randomlinh - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
I was thinking the same... this moves the flash a little closer in line with the lens.. but l brackets still have one huge advantage... it RAISES the flash up, which can be quite beneficial in itself.Crafty Spiker - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
Regardless of the product - do you really want to "vote" for Sony?melgross - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
It's interesting that both Canon's 5D, and Nikon's D700 cameras are considered to be, even by their manufacturers, advanced amateur or semi-pro bodies, but at the same price level, the Sony 900 is considered to be professional, ala the Canon 1Ds, 1D, and Nikon D3.Sorry, this camera isn't built like those pro bodies from Canon and Nikon.
While pro's certainly use the 5D, and D700, they also use the 40D and the D300.
So, are those now pro bodies as well?
Sensor size doesn't determine whether a body is pro, and really, neither does weather sealing.
The 1Ds 1D, and D3 are certainly the most rugged bodies on the market, nothing else approaches them in this.
chiew - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
Sony has no weather sealed lenses...I doubt pros who shoot in adverse conditions will want a Sony until it is proven.Wesley Fink - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
The Canon 5D and Nikon D700 have 95% wiewfinders. So do the D300 and 40D. The Nikon D3, Canon 1Ds MkIII, AND Sony A900 all have 100% viewfinders. That is certainly one measure of a Pro camera.In comparing the build quality of the A900 to my D3 I did not find the A900 lacking. Of course the test of time is what matters most in evaluating build quality and it will take a while to see if the build is as rugged as it appears.
I assumed the grip would be an Achilles heel since the other Pro models have a built-in grip. However, the A900 grip uses the same magnesium alloy shell and sealing used on the a900. Still, an integrated grip would certainly be better sealed almost by definition. Frankly I prefer a grip I can leave at home if I choose. The true Pro models that fit your criteria are all a pain to lug around in the field. That's why my D4 stays at home sometimes and the D700 goes with me.
In the end I have no doubt the Sony is as well constructed as the other cameras you judge as Pro. I do, however, have reservations about a shutter that is only rated for 100,000 actuations. That is very low for a camera to be considered Pro, and is much more typical of semi-Pro or Advanced prosumer models.
melgross - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Big deal. Over the years, the Nikon F series had a 100% viewfinder. That didn't prevent Canon from knocking it off it;s top spot, even though Canon didn't consider that to be important.In fact, for many years, a 100% viewfinder was considered to be a negative. When we shot transparencies, the mount covered the millimeter around the outside edge of the slide, making what you saw no more than about 96% of the total. Using a 100% viewfinder often caused the mount to hide the edge of what you saw anyway.
Nowadays, it;s true, that doesn't matter, but 2 to 5% of the viewfinders outside edges is of no real noticeable importance if its less than the full frame. The problem would be the other way around.
I think the shutter is far more important in telling us what this camera is intended for than whatever else we can see from the outside. Can't judge a camera by its shell. Even the 5D II now has a 150,000 cycle shutter.
Lord 666 - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
The D300 has a 100% viewfinder. However, at $3000 for the D700, they could have easily used the same from D3... but more than likely did not to protect sales of D3.http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Di...">http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Di...
Wesley Fink - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
You are correct, the D300 does have a 100% finder. Mea Culpa.roweraay - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
Obviously, an APS-C 100% viewfinder is only 42% of the size of a Full-frame viewfinder at equivalent magnification. That is a point one has to really keep in mind.Note that the 100% viewfinder at 0.74x magnification, is larger than the viewfinders in the Nikon D3 or the Nikon D700 or the Canon 1DSMKII or the Canon 5D.
In fact, the Sony A900's viewfinder is the 2nd largest Viewfinder EVER, in any DSLR, with the $8000 Canon 1DSMKIII slightly edging it out in size. Note that the precision assembly required and the tighter manufacturing tolerances in a 100% viewfinder, makes it head-and-shoulders above even a 95% viewfinder.
The viewfinder sizes are as below:
Nikon D3: 100% VF with 0.7x magnification
Nikon D700: 95% VF with 0.72X magnification
Canon 5D: 96% VF with 0.71x magnification
Canon 1DSMKII: 100% with 0.7x magnification
Canon 1DSMKIII: 100% VF with 0.76x magnification
Kudos to Sony for getting this in at such a price and specification. Coupled with the fact that only the Sony Full-frame will have stabilized 35mm primes, 50mm primes, 85mm primes, 135mm primes, along with a stabilized 16-35 f/2.8, a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 etc., makes this a VERY appealing product.
I personally DEFINITELY intend to "vote" for this with my money.
roweraay - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
Also note that the Sony Full-RAW files are around 40MB in size, per file, when it comes to the A900.So when shooting RAW at 5FPS, that is around 200MB of image data PER second.
When shooting RAW+JPEG at 5FPS, we need to add another 100MB to the above number, thus taking us to 300MB of data PER SECOND.
What the above means is that the data pipeline architecture needed to support 24.6MP of resolution at 5FPS, is literally equivalent to the data pipeline architecture of MUCH pricier products like the 1DSMKIII and the Nikon D3. This is WAY superior to the architecture in products like the Nikon D700 or the Canon 5D (current version).
Also, dpreview tests show that the A700 is WRITING to the CF-card at around 37MB/Sec, when tested with a 40MB/Sec Sandisk Extreme IV card (max speed: 40MB/Sec). In other words, the A700 is WRITING to the card at almost the full speed of a 266x 40MB/Sec UDMA card. I would assume that with a 300x 45MB/Sec card, it very well might have broken the 40MB/Sec write-to-card speed barrier.
When mentioning the above write-to-card speeds, I need to point out that the above speeds are faster than any other dSLR, regardless of cost. It is faster than the Canon 1DSMKIII, 1DMKIII, Nikon D3, Nikon D300, Nikon D700 etc. Only the Nikon D3/D300 come relatively close to the A700's write-to-CF-card speed.
I would not be surprised if the A900 is even faster, if we employ a 45MB/SEC 300X card to test its write-to-card speed.
I would venture that Sony is employing the full power of its electronics expertise in their high-end pro/semi-pro level cameras.
chiew - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
wow...it can beat a three year old camera in write speed. kudos, sony!roweraay - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
Maybe you did not read it well enough. ;)The one-year-old Sony A700, is beating every single DSLR *ever* made, regardless of pricepoint, in the write-to-card speed.
The A900 could match it or maybe be even faster !
chiew - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
how much does write speed really matter, though?is there any data on 1D mkIII write speeds? because based on more important things, like frames per second, color depth, etc, cameras like the 1d mkIII and nikon d3 have to write pretty damn fast. . i know write speed to card is part of the pipeline, but as long as the camera writes fast enough to keep up with its rated specs, i don't see why write speed is such a huge deal
a700: 5 frames per second, 12 bit, 12 mp
40d: 6.5 fps, 14 bit, 10 mp
1d mkIII: 10 fps, 14 bit, 10 mp
one example of a camera that doesnt keep up is the d300, which when switched into 14 bit mode, cannot keep up with its 6 fps.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
A catalog photographer at the Sony presentation has been shooting with the A900 for several weeks. He was a Canon 1Ds Mark III user He also was a user for many years of Hasselblads with Zeiss glass and digital backs. The Zeiss lenses were a big part of his move to Sony.This same photographer quoted the largest capture file size as 68MB, but your 40MB is much closer to the published specs in the A900 brochure. Those charts show a 4GB card can capture 105 full RAW files or 157 cRAW.
I suspect the PRO was referring to the file size of a finished TIFF saved from processing a RAW image since he mentioned he used Capture One for most of his PP. Frankly I didn't know Capture One supported the A700 until he assured us he had used it for his PP with the A700. Capture One will also apparently support the A900 by the time it is shipping. Since the program is widely used by Pros that will be important to many.
roweraay - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
The biggest draw for me are the Zeiss AF lenses in the Sony range, too. Specifically the CZ 85mm f/1.4 Planar, the CZ 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar, the CZ 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar and the 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar. I already have the 85mm and the 24-70 f/2.8 with me and will add the 135 (shortly) and the 16-35 f/2.8 when it becomes available.There were some rumors that there is also an upcoming Carl Zeiss 70-200 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar, which if true, would provide f/2.8 from 16mm to 200mm. This lens is rumored to replace the current 70-200 f/2.8G SSM (from the Konica-Minolta era).
Wesley Fink - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
D3 and not D4. I wish I really had a D4 but it was just a slip of the finger.Rashkae - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
Sony does not target this at Pros. It's officially semi-pro, and they said "it's a camera that even pros might want to use".And have you held it? Used it? I have. It's build is so seriously solid it impressed a die-hard D3 user. Don't dismiss the ruggedness of this body, when even the lower-spec A700 survived in conditions the Canon 1Ds-MkIII died in.
melgross - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
They are calling it a pro body here. That's what I'm talking about.And thats pure BS about the A700 vs the 1Ds. I've used the 1Ds and you could use it as a hammer to smash the A700 to a pancake, then go out to shoot some sports.
chiew - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
what conditions did the a700 survive in that the 1Ds didn't?hanugro - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
Hm ,I do remember last year that I heard about shooting video and choosing 1 fram as digital still from SOny CEO himself. I don't know whether it is his idea or he heard from someone else. But Sony has stated that it won't put feature that is not ready. I am sure it has cross Sony's mind. Also they are one that among the first develop sensor that can take 120fps but at lower resolution. You have to understand that this 24MP create about 15MB per frame. If your video is 24fps then does the CF available now is big enough? Also don't tell me that SOny should allow lower HDTV 1920x1080 pixel video and hope that you can extract one frame of it and sell it to newspaper. They will laugh at it, newspaper / magazine needs at least 6-12MP pictures before they consider to publish it. Also if you want video then buy videocam instead. I imagine using liveview (or using the sensor for video) will shorten the live of the sensor itself. Whay would I want to do that?aeternitas - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
I think people willing to pay 3k for a camera;#1 Dont care about 100$ battery. (wtf?)
#2 Could get something better for a bit more if they want new.
#3 Something better for less if they buy used.
#4 Nikon and Cannon will come out with something better for less in a matter of a few months.
"Full frame" is great, but all it does is get rid of crop factoron 35mm cameras. What happeneds when CCDs get bigger? They will need to, becuse no matter what technology the camera has in it, SnR is going to be better at lower MP resolutions on the same size CCD. 24MP sounds fantastic, but noice reduction does not always equate to added detail. The only real way to get more detail, is to actualy replace noise with information and the real only wat to do that is to make the CCD bigger or make the pixelsites bigger.
gipper51 - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
Nice preview of a very interesting camera. I did notice several times you mentioned the Sony as being twice the resolution as the D3/5D which is not accurate. It has twice the pixels but you need 4x the pixels to truly double a sensors resolving power.This camera should shake up the industry on the high end. I can't see Canikon shooters ditching their current investments and going with Sony because of this cam, but at the very least the era of high resolution FF cameras costing as much as a new compact car is over. Bravo Sony.
chiew - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
Just a note: Canon's 1Ds mkIII has a larger viewfinder than the A900 in specs...Canon 1Ds mkIII: .76x 100% FF vf
Sony A900: .74x 100% FF vf
Yea the Canon costs more than 2x as much. However, if history has its say, Canon will trickle down the viewfinder like it did from the Canon 1Ds mkII to the 5D (0.70x in the 1Ds mkII and 0.71x in the 5D). Whatever Canon has up its sleeve, its likely a full frame, and hopefully Canon users will get a nice large viewfinder in whatever the followup to the 5D is.
KorruptioN - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
As for the bump in fps rate with cropped lenses like Nikon does, apparently this is due to a lens design decision by Minolta. The aperture arm must travel a much more significant distance compared to the aperture arms in Nikon's lenses. This physical requirement alone is likely what is limiting all of Sony's DSLRs to 5fps maximum.Wesley Fink - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
I shot several images with DT lenses and the A900 crop factor worked perfectly. You can also manually force DT, even on a full-frame lens. With that capability, and an 11 megapixel image size in crop mode, a faster shooting speed would have been an incredible feature. The Nikon 5 megapixel crop-mode image is OK for newspaper but too small for some things. An 11 megapixel crop is a lot more interesting.strikeback03 - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
The point of an L bracket is to get the flash above the lens regardless of camera orientation. This new flash still has the flash offset to the side, so you still need a bracket if you want to move your flash over top of your lens.Wesley Fink - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
There are some cases where an in-line flash is more desirable, but for most situations where photographers use a flash the Sony 90 degree turn will accomplish just what the photographer is looking for when he attaches an L bracket.haplo602 - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
I bought a Nikon F75 as my first SLR after some long search and decision making. Then a few days after it's arrival I learned about the Minolta Dynx 7 and regreted my decision. A few months later I had the opportunity to actualy shoot with a Minolta 7D and I was even more unhappy.Now with this new Sony, I am close to tears. The Nikons I have are solid cameras, I do not complain there, however any Nikon camera close to this Alpha sensor will cost a fortune which I cannot afford. The A900 seems like a quality and "cheap" camera.
(I have to add I never owned a DSLR :-))
chiew - Sunday, September 14, 2008 - link
If all you want is 24mp...Nikon's D700 is priced equivalently, doesn't have the 24mp...but it has more ISO range and a pro AF system. I don't see why you're crying.
Lord 666 - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
More than likely same MP in sensor, but same or better outstanding ISO performance as D3.I've never held a Sony DSLR yet, but question the build quality. Additionally, I find it interesting that when other camera companies market their cameras, they almost always exclusively show the pics taken with them, but no cameras inside those pictures as subjects. Sony on the other hand releases pictures "in the wild" of people using the camera almost as models. Check out http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12902">http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12902
Wesley Fink - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
Sony announced the A900 with both studio setups surrounded with 2x3 feet enlargements of images taken with the A900. The brochure for the A900 is around 8x12" and filled with double page photos(12x16 inches). Both studio setups were tethered to huge Bravia HD TVs. The photographers in both settings were shooting, displaying on screen and doing 6.5x zooms to show detail. A large number of A900 cameras were available for us to shoot both scenes.In the Sony A900 launch event the emphasis was clearly on images captured with the the A900. As for build quality you should examine an A900 to answer your questions about build quality. Feel and Build Quality certainly appear superb. I also own a D3 and D700 and the Sony A900 belongs in that league IMHO.
Lord 666 - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
So you have finally come over to the Nikon side with those investments in the D3 and D700? Don't you also have/had a D300?Wesley Fink - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
I sold my D300 and all my DX lenses when I went for the D3/D700, and I particularly like the size, capabilities. and value of the D700. I also own other cameras and have some lenses for every system we review since they are needed for testing.My main APS-C since the exit of the D300 is the Sony A700 which is the same sensor and LCD as the D300, but obviously not the same electronics/post processing as the Nikon. Sony has continued to improve their post-processing and finally have the option to turn off NR completely in RAW with firmware 4. JPEGs are also further improved in 4. THe A700 is very nice with the in-body IS that works with lenses like the Tamron 18-250mm (or Sony 18-250mm), which is a really terrific lens for when I need small and compact.
I am also testing a Sony A200 right now, which at less than $500 for camera with body IS and 18-70mm kit lens is looking like a heck of a buy.
davidaspart - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
"Same Pricey Battery- The same proprietary NP-FM500H battery used in the A700, A350, A300, and A200 is also used in the A900. Great consistency, but you can still only buy it from Sony and you will still pay $55 to $95 for a spare. Sony insists on pimping their battery manufacturing even if their stubborn insistence on a proprietary battery drives some users away in a market where they need to win new users."Oh come on!
Thats like saying someone who buys a Ferrari worries that it takes premium fuel.
The camera costs $3000!
Koing - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
Indeed. How much are OEM Canon cameras?If you drop $3000 on a camera and $500 on a flash $100 for a battery isn't a big deal...
The MS is a Sony thing...
Koing
Wesley Fink - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
The less than $500 A200 kit uses the same battery as the A900, which is great consistency. Frankly so did the A100, but you could buy generic A100 batteries if you chose for less than $8. When Sony introduced the A700 they added a groove to the center of the battery so A100 batteries would no longer fit and apparently patent4ed the revised design. In fact A100 chargers still work just fine with the new Sony A700/A900/A350/A300/A200 battery.Many would definitely stick with the manufacturer's battery, but my complaint is about choice. I can choose which battery with Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus batteries as generic options are readily available. You can not choose another battery with any of the new Sony cameras. Sony is a huge battery maker and they have locked up choice. You are forced to buy the Sony overpriced battery as there are no other choices in the market.
As an aside Sony STILL will not allow the use of AA batteries in their grips. Many like the versatility of using rechargeable AAs to power their grips instead and other companies include the AA insert or offer it as an option. There is also the issue of flexibility. If you get caught with a dead proprietary battery in the field it is reassuring to know you can continue shooting with AAs that are readily available anywhere - but that is not an option with Sony DSLR cameras.
KorruptioN - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
I've mentioned this before - the battery incorporates InfoLithium technology which relays exact info in terms of a percentage remaining, instead of a graphic battery meter with five different levels. This feature is fantastic and is worth the money (to me).Serious question now, does Nikon's battery in the D300/D700/D3 relay that same percentage info even if you get a generic battery? I know that you have to dive deep into a menu to get that information.
Wesley Fink - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
The D300/D700 use the same EN-EL3e battery as the D80, which does not provide a percentage. With optional accessories you can add the BL-4(a) high capcity battery to the MB-D10 battery grip and it does indeed report the percentage - at least when charging and on the D3. That battery though is 2500mAh and not the lower capacity 16500mAh of the Sony battery.Generics for the EN-EL3e used in the D700 and D300 generally perform the same and there are many with higher capacity and longer life. The EN-EL4(a) used in the D3 and D2x is tougher for finding generic replacements. Some I have seen do work but it is much more a question mark than the 3e and the generics generally don't report percent.
The Sony NP-FM500H charges just fine to 100% in the old chargers for the A100, but the groove prevents them fitting in any of this generation Sony cameras. The Info-Lithium is useful to me but it is not worth the 700% to 1200% premium to me that Sony charges for the FM500H compared the generics. I appreciate that it is worth it to you, but I would prefer to be able to use some of the 2000mAh batteries I used with the A100.
Wesley Fink - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
That is the EN-EL4(a) battery for the Nikon Pro cameras and the Sony capacity is specified as 1650mAh and not 16500. We do need an edit function here!dr4gon - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
The memory stick is so that you have the ability to shoot RAW+JPG. It's just for redundancy in case your compact flash card dies for whatever reason. All is not lost since the JPEGs can be saved on the MS like the a700.VirtualMirage - Friday, September 12, 2008 - link
On the a700 you can only shoot to one memory card or the other at any given time. When set to RAW+JPEG, it doesn't send one file to one card and the other file to the other card (that option is not even available). It would be neat if it did, though, since I could have used that feature with my a700 when doing a wedding shoot back in June. The camera also doesn't automatically switch over to the other card when the first card is full, you have to go into the menu and switch it over manually. The a900, from reading a preview on another site, does the exact same thing in regards to memory card management as the a700 (which is a bit of a shame).As for the use of a memory stick and CF, I can understand the con with this since if you want to have a fall back memory card you have to deal with two different memory card formats. But the advantage to it, though, is a smaller camera profile since two CF card slots would require a little more room.
Below are some features I wish my a700 did (as well as the new a900) in regards to its two memory card slots:
-Automatic switchover when the first card is full.
-Option to have RAW files go to one card and a JPEG version go to the other card.
-Backup mode where ever picture shot is copied (in the same file format) to both cards.
Shame they don't do this. But oh well, the a700 is still a great camera. And with the new firmware that got leaked out earlier this week (v.4), it's an even better camera since they added some features to the a700 that are in the a900. Some of these improvements are: High ISO NR can now be turned off (used to be you can go no further than LOW), Image quality algorithms have been improved with NR on and off (finer grain pattern in high ISO shots, no more watercolor NR), EV bracketing now has a +/- 2 option for HDR shooting, and some people are reporting WB has improved in certain lighting. Their maybe more improvements, but since it was leaked with no update readme (and was quickly removed from the site too when it was discovered), the only improvements mentioned are what people have found after installing it. Supposedly, the official release of the firmware update is sometime next week (the 16th is what I am hearing). Probably so as to not steal the a900's thunder.
~Paul