• While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].

24.6MP Sony Alpha 900 DSLR

Some what off topic since 24.6Mpixels is huge, that being said from someone still with 6.7Mpixels.

You know this made me think of something. With the way CCDs are going. With only 4 times more pixels you'd be very close to over sampling the diffraction pattern of the camera given the size of lenses on DSLRs (assuming a FOV of 45 degrees ~8cm Diameter lens). I guess there eventually will be an upper limit on chip size because a certain size bigger won't be making the photo sharper.
 
24.6mp is BS. At those numbers, it's all just marketing. People need to stop believing the megapixel myth. For that to really matter, the sensor size needs to increase. If this were a medium format camera with 24mp, then sign me up!
 
The Luminous Landscape has a hands on report for this camera. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-nr.shtml

It seems like a contradiction (more like a real waste) to buy a 24mp camera with internal noise reduction that can't be turned off that basically diminishes the resolution that a 24mp sensor could provide in the first place. I guess I will just have to stick with my "old" 10mp camera.
 
But no live view?
Click to expand...

It's an SLR...I absolutely hate the dumbing down of these cameras by the introduction of live view. If you can't compose by looking through the viewfinder, maybe you should use a video camera instead.

Also, +1 on the megapixels. For the size of sensor (essentially the same as you will find in the Nikon DX) once you get above 12, there is no observable difference unless you are shooting test patterns at 400 mm all day.
 
Not sure what the stink is about 24.6mp on a new full frame sensor?
The $7800 EOS-1Ds Mark III is 21mp on the same size sensor and it's a year old.
I read the luminous landscapes review, it seemed like the guy wasn't quite sure how to handle the files, but sounded positive overall, with the EOS-1Ds Mark III having only slightly better image quality.

Here is a deep review of the camera that paints a tasty picture. Again, 1Ds only slightly better.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM
Quite a few 6048x4032 sample images in there.

The more I read about it, the more I like it.

-magnesium weather resistant body
-1/8000 shutter
-sensor cleaning
-sensor stabilizer
-fantastic viewfinder
-dynamic range optimizer
etc.
I want live view, but the preview sounds usable.
Will be interesting to see what Canon has for a response.
 
If you're buying a camera for megapixels, buy a large format camera, Ken Rockwell says its the eqivalent to a 100mp camera, its also $1000 less than this camera though it is film and takes way more time.

Check out Jack Brauer at www.widerange.org he has some amazing shots, that you can purchase at huge sizes because of his large format camera.
 
The 900 looks impressive, especially considering the price point. The best part is the full-frame sensor. The pixel count is impressive but, like the 1Ds Mk III, is creeping into fantasy land. It takes an extremely sharp lens to take advantage of anything close to 25 MP.

I love shooting digital, and the immediate feedback and low operating cost has helped me immensely with my photography. However, after drooling over every full-frame body from the Canon 5D to the Mk III, I decided to go the old-school route and switch back to film...at least for making larger prints. I can scan the equivalent of 300 megapixels from a 6x7 medium format frame (if I ever wanted to) and I can develop my own negatives in the bathroom (gotta love TMAX 100). Realistically I could never justify dumping even $3000+ into a new camera body, and that doesn't even count the high-dollar lenses it would justify. I can scan sharper images from my Mamiya than I would ever get from a digital SLR.

I still rely on my XTi for chasing, action, and any situation where I don't have time to manually meter the scene with a spot meter. The image quality is great for its price range, and it makes really nice prints up to 11x17.

Having said that, there is something extremely satisfying about taking the time to manually meter the scene and fire off a few images with the Mamiya. When I can get the shot, the image quality blows the XTi away.

So, the point of my ramblings is that something like the Alpha 900 or the Canon Mark III may make good sense for someone making a living with it. For most of us, though, there are much cheaper options that can beat them on image quality. Studios are flooding the market with used medium format gear.
 
With a 24 megapixel camera the RAW files have to be huge. I'll bet a 2G card will only hold about 36 images. I don't miss that at all.

I also wonder how well it does with low light and shadows.
 
Cris Schroeder said:
I take back what I wrote earlier...I'm back to drooling over a DSLR after reading the specs for the new Canon 5D Mk II.
Click to expand...

Heretic! This is what you really need to get!!

fuji-617.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ericjkelly
FS: Canon Rebel XT DSLR with 18-55 Lens
Replies
3
Views
6K
Greg Campbell
Greg Campbell
Back
Top