Sony Alpha A900

I take a look at the Sony Alpha A900, the full frame DSLR from the electronics giant. Because of the comprehensive review, it's over 10minutes long which is too much for YouTube to cope with. Take a look at the full review on ephotozine.tv!!

http://www.ephotozine.tv/video/Sony-Alpha-A900-960

Also, don't forget the full written review on http://www.ephotozine.com

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• sony
• alpha
• a900
• dslr
• digital
• camera
• review
• full
• frame

[epzmatt]

Nikon D40 is an older outmoded camera. It is very popular though so it's not a bad choice.

[epzmatt]

There you go. When I uploaded this, the full version wasn't yet online. =:O)

[modernphotographer]

@AIDSbanana But the 5Dmk2 also has an AF system comparable to a rebel

[TomZentra]

@sbs260 Manufacturers had just begun to add video to DSLRs a few years ago when the A900 was released. At that time the D3 still did not have video.

To survive as a pro photographer in modern times you must offer video to your clients. This means either carrying a second system or having your principal system shoot video too. However, no single camera -- not even one that does stills and video -- can cover all types of shoots.

[ellsworthra]

ahhh at 0:11 i was like ohh noes dont drop the camerah

[sbs260]

i love how sony kept the a900 style very old

but put modern touches to the retroness

it does not have those newer modern features like video capture or live view but personally when i had my Nikon D90 which has both of those features. 95% taking pictures form viewfinder and 5% using movie and live view.

those features just corrupts the main purpose of the camera which is to make the best image possible. and with the intelligent preview, 5fps, steady shot, and 100% view. just pure raw photography

[BigPreme]

actually resolution wise this camera *a900 wipes the floor with the 5d and the d700. Read reviews from dpreview and any other site that has run tests on those three cameras. For studio work and commercial work and at low iso this is a good thing. Also its not simply a mater of more megapixels being bad. Its the size of the megapixels on the sensor. The bigger the better. from iso 400 to 800 the a900 is king in terms of image quality.

[dvamateur]

What is that big lens in the background? Isn't that a Konica-Minolta 600mm f/4.0? And yes, I agree with herriho. 3 megapixels difference is nothing at that resolution.  The less pixels is actually better, because it's less noise. I think that the D700 is the best in low light out of all the EOS 5D MkII and Alpha 900.

[AIDSbanana]

unless you need true rofessional weather sealing and/or durability.

[AIDSbanana]

the 5d mark II also has much better high iso performance compared to the a900.

[Lord0fSteel]

Nice ad.

[herriho]

it's the rival to the new canon eos 5D mark II.

I prefer the mark II, because you can capture full HD videos and the resolution almost equals the resolution from the a900. i don't think that the 3 more megapixels of the a900 convince over the mark II....why should you buy the 1Ds mark III or the Nikon D3x? the A900 & Eos 5D mark II are entirely sufficient for professional photography.