D700 or Sony A900 (same price)?

[lunas]

Errr, I don't think the A900 is targeted at snapshot folks who would otherwise happily use their handphones.

When Nikon does come out with its D3x or whatever, I wonder how many would also claim that megapixels don't matter much. Personally, I use a Fuji S5 a lot, so I guess I have some appreciation that there is more to image quality than pixel count. But still, you cannot run away from the basic rule that it is ultmately the pixels that capture an image. I agree that cramping 12MP into a compact camera with CCD the size of a pinhead is just too much, and is counterproductive, but surely 24MP on a 24 x 36mm surface area has not exceeded all reasonable limits? If I am not wrong, the pixel density (or pixel size) of a 24MP FX sensor is about the same as 12MP DX.

I agree, they do not target snapshot folks. But they do attract rich snapshot folks who find full-frame the 'IN' thing to go in photography. That alone, they have captured this piece of the pie.

When D3x is launched, I would still firm that MP doesn't matter by not buying it

 

[lsisaxon]

I agree, they do not target snapshot folks. But they do attract rich snapshot folks who find full-frame the 'IN' thing to go in photography. That alone, they have captured this piece of the pie.

When D3x is launched, I would still firm that MP doesn't matter by not buying it

Just look at the situation when D3 was released. It was out of stock for like several months!! The cash rich is quite a big slice of the pie considering the price the camera is selling at. It's not something any Tom, Dick or Harry would want to part their hard earned money for unless they have lots just to throw or they really needed the body for ultrawides.

 

[yyD70S]

And the price will come down sooner than one thought; what with the impending release of more FF Canons and SONYs.

But for the most of us, I think 12MP is going to do fine for now..... until the prices start coming down.. ;p

 

[ExplorerZ]

whatever it is, people who are not brand loyal or new to photography will definitely go for the 24MP than the 12MP if both are at the same price... Its a really good market pull for sony to really press the price down under 4k. even if optically no lens can catch up with that 24MP sensor from edge to edge, we still get almost double to pixel for the center portion of the image. just like a 12MP d200 compare to a 6MP d70(assuming both are using the same technology made sensor, nr... etc)

 

[lunas]

Just look at the situation when D3 was released. It was out of stock for like several months!! The cash rich is quite a big slice of the pie considering the price the camera is selling at. It's not something any Tom, Dick or Harry would want to part their hard earned money for unless they have lots just to throw or they really needed the body for ultra wides.

Yea. If I am SONY, since I am unable to get the slice of the Pros..I will target the rich with power pack specs on 'paper'. Good marketing, get ambassadors...do up huge display windows...the rich and innocent will sure get Hooked...

There is a saying in Hokkien...'No fish, prawn is also acceptable.'

 

[An drew]

whatever it is, people who are not brand loyal or new to photography will definitely go for the 24MP than the 12MP if both are at the same price... Its a really good market pull for sony to really press the price down under 4k. even if optically no lens can catch up with that 24MP sensor from edge to edge, we still get almost double to pixel for the center portion of the image. just like a 12MP d200 compare to a 6MP d70(assuming both are using the same technology made sensor, nr... etc)

Agree, assuming all other things being equal.

 

[giantcanopy]

For long time shooters, MP is probably not a delicious temptation. But many first time buyers will see 24 MP as a reason to prefer Sony over Nikon - The A900 will appeal to a small niche , and I see it as an opportunity for Sony to get abit more of the pie.

It might be a disaster for them to peg the price higher than what the market leaders are offering with their pro models.

Ryan

 

[lsisaxon]

For long time shooters, MP is probably not a delicious temptation. But many first time buyers will see 24 MP as a reason to prefer Sony over Nikon - The A900 will appeal to a small niche , and I see it as an opportunity for Sony to get abit more of the pie.

It might be a disaster for them to peg the price higher than what the market leaders are offering with their pro models.

Ryan

Whatever it is, let's be reminded of what the Nikon could do with just 12MP.
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond3_samples/

Honestly, after looking at the Nikon D3 samples again myself, I don't think they are any less detailed than the 24MP samples for A900. :dunno: I am even confident that I can upsample it by 140% in post and still give the 24MP a run for its noise.

 

[marios_pittas]

It's definitely going to put a serious challenge to medium format. But for the most of us, I think 12MP is going to do fine for now..... until the prices start coming down.. ;p

I acknowledge my ignorance on / and strong interest in the above... Does the sensor size not matter? A 24MP 35mm sensor vs a 24MP 645 say sensor are they the same?

Hope you can clarify

 

[groupwest]

the body is not sexy like Nikon leh. Come on..... Sony's designers from the notebook department...join the camera team.... ;p

 

[lsisaxon]

I acknowledge my ignorance on / and strong interest in the above... Does the sensor size not matter? A 24MP 35mm sensor vs a 24MP 645 say sensor are they the same?

Hope you can clarify

Sensor size matters, 24MP matters, but cramping 24MP into a 36mmx24mm with optics that cannot resolve well enough?

Even in digital MF, the sensor is smaller than the lens is intended for. eg 48mmx36mm sensor using optics intended for a 60mm x 60mm film. But the prices are way above what I would pay for. How much is a roll of 120 film? How often do I shoot on 120 film? ;p

 

[marios_pittas]

Sensor size matters, 24MP matters, but cramping 24MP into a 36mmx24mm with optics that cannot resolve well enough?

Even in digital MF, the sensor is smaller than the lens is intended for. eg 48mmx36mm sensor using optics intended for a 60mm x 60mm film. But the prices are way above what I would pay for. How much is a roll of 120 film? How often do I shoot on 120 film? ;p

Ehhhhh... thank you...

> How much is a roll of 120 film
$0 got fridge shelves full of them

> How often do I shoot on 120 film
Hopefully a lot more than what I have been shooting recently

-- Marios

 

[lsisaxon]

Ehhhhh... thank you...

> How much is a roll of 120 film
$0 got fridge shelves full of them

> How often do I shoot on 120 film
Hopefully a lot more than what I have been shooting recently

-- Marios

I think it will take ages to get a break even with digital MF. ;p

 

[bigpond]

I think it will take ages to get a break even with digital MF. ;p

No lah ... a Hasselblad CF-22 digital back (22MP) is only US$19,995.

 

[entropy_h]

How about that top lcd panel on the A900? Thoughts?

 

[lsisaxon]

No lah ... a Hasselblad CF-22 digital back (22MP) is only US$19,995.

How many rolls of 120 film do I have to shoot to hit that? :dunno:

 

[marios_pittas]

How many rolls of 120 film do I have to shoot to hit that? :dunno:

Ahhh :bsmilie: need calculator.... :bsmilie:

 

[ExplorerZ]

How many rolls of 120 film do I have to shoot to hit that? :dunno:

not long for heavy shooter, and digital is much easier to clock than film camera. :sweatsm:
there are people who easily clock 1k or more image on a dSLR on a single day, film? lol that will be 300rolls. :sweat:
beside that, one still have to pay for developing even with his/her own darkroom...

 

[gymak90]

EXIF says ISO200.

Hmm ok. I didnt have the time to check :sweat: It seems decent, but I think a pic taken in high iso will tell more.

It definitely has not. To get the same resolution as a 12MP DX, you can go to 26MP (2.25x). But again, the problem is optics. Lenses are usually sharper in the centre than the corners. If you look at MTF charts, the contrast of the lenses usually drops from nearly 90+% to around 50% or less at the corners. The saggital and meridional contrast traces also separates which suggest spherical aberration as you move away from the optical centre.

The thing about DX is that it uses the best part of the 135 format optics for imaging at the expense of angle of view. So using a 24MP imager for FX, you are only getting good resolution at the centre but at the corners, you are using more than enough resolution to capture fuzziness. I have tested several prime lenses on D3 and comparing it to just the 17-55DX on a D300 and posted the results. You can see that many of the older primes are not able to cut it for FX even at only 12MP.

Of course with the new lenses like the 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8, I think they should be able to at least outresolve 16-18MP FX sensor corner-to-corner based on the MTF charts. We'll wait and see what's Nikon's answer to the higher resolution FF bodies by the competition.

Just curious, what happens if a 24MP sensor, contains pixels of different sizes. Smaller pixels will congregated at the centre, while the corners and sides have larger pixels. In total, they add up to 24MP. Is that feasible? It's like dedicating sharpness to the centre and capture less 'fuzziness' at the corners...

the body is not sexy like Nikon leh. Come on..... Sony's designers from the notebook department...join the camera team.... ;p

I remember DPreview always complain that Alpha cams have Minolta DNA. I think looks don't really matter, unless you want to show off your cam. I must say sony alphas are comfortable to hold, which is more important to me. Better than cams from some other leading brands.

How about that top lcd panel on the A900? Thoughts?

Finally a top lcd panel for alpha cams. Gives the A900 a less pns feel? For people who are new to dslrs, they won't know the usefulness of the top lcd panel. For people who know the usefulness of it, I don't think they will pay that much for an A900 just to have the top lcd panel. Look elsewhere; mid-range dslrs like 40D, D80 already have it.

 

[-ReignOfComputer-]

Oh man...megapixels again?Looks like that is the only factor big companies (except nikon to a certain extent) play with to draw consumers.However,the A900's amateur size tells us that it
is not a professional workhorse.I doubt ISO performance is up to nikon's latest standard