Ha ha! Told you! New Sony = $3000!

RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/page2.asp

But the body is....plastic!

The body is solid magnesium alloy all round. I know, I've seen the
inside shells and held it.

Whatever the shortcomings of the camera may prove to be, it's firmly
aimed at the wealthy amateur who in the past bought Contax RTS or Leica
R4 etc - expensive excellent lenses, comfortable feel (not a pro lump),
amazing viewfinder and very fast response, plus of course the biggest
image around right now.

I tried a bunch of my own vintage lenses on it, to compare with the new
16-35, 70-400mm etc and the results are interesting. My 28-75mm KM seems
to be really excellent with it. 17-35mm less so. 24-105mm D -
exceptionally sharp but bendy geometry.

I also tried some vintage-type Sony lenses - 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 -
don't bother - they don't cut it - CA and softness all round. 50mm f1.4
- amazing. Very good indeed.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/page2.asp

But the body is....plastic!

The body is solid magnesium alloy all round. I know, I've seen the
inside shells and held it.

Whatever the shortcomings of the camera may prove to be, it's firmly
aimed at the wealthy amateur who in the past bought Contax RTS or Leica
R4 etc - expensive excellent lenses, comfortable feel (not a pro lump),
amazing viewfinder and very fast response, plus of course the biggest
image around right now.

I tried a bunch of my own vintage lenses on it, to compare with the new
16-35, 70-400mm etc and the results are interesting. My 28-75mm KM seems
to be really excellent with it. 17-35mm less so. 24-105mm D -
exceptionally sharp but bendy geometry.

I also tried some vintage-type Sony lenses - 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 -
don't bother - they don't cut it - CA and softness all round. 50mm f1.4
- amazing. Very good indeed.

How was the wide angle corner performance? Vignetting?

[do you happen to know if they do a microlens correction for this?]

I'm sorry to hear that about the 20mm f/2.8 ... it is somehting I want
to use on the a900.

Perhaps the 16-35 f/2.8 CZ will be better?

I'm wondering if the 28-70 f/2.8 will be up to it as well. It's pretty
sharp but not amazingly so.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/page2.asp

But the body is....plastic!

The body is solid magnesium alloy all round. I know, I've seen the
inside shells and held it.

Whatever the shortcomings of the camera may prove to be, it's firmly
aimed at the wealthy amateur who in the past bought Contax RTS or
Leica R4 etc - expensive excellent lenses, comfortable feel (not a pro
lump), amazing viewfinder and very fast response, plus of course the
biggest image around right now.

I tried a bunch of my own vintage lenses on it, to compare with the
new 16-35, 70-400mm etc and the results are interesting. My 28-75mm KM
seems to be really excellent with it. 17-35mm less so. 24-105mm D -
exceptionally sharp but bendy geometry.

I also tried some vintage-type Sony lenses - 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 -
don't bother - they don't cut it - CA and softness all round. 50mm
f1.4 - amazing. Very good indeed.

How was the wide angle corner performance? Vignetting?

No rela vignetting problem and no colour shifts. They have microlenses
and shading correction - the actual pixel wells at 5.9µm which makes
them relatively smaller for the area, indicating that microlenses may be
taking more space than usual.

The camera has the AA filter placed much higher off the sensor, and a
dual-level mirror which sort of lifts and rises in limited space,
despite being the biggest mirror of any DSLR. I know that placing the AA
filter forward will not change its impact on BF (the thickness of the
glass in an AA filter always produced BF in short focal length or wide
aperture lenses - work out the ray trace compared to a long lens) but it
will greatly reduce the visibility of dust.

[do you happen to know if they do a microlens correction for this?]

I'm sorry to hear that about the 20mm f/2.8 ... it is somehting I want
to use on the a900.

Perhaps the 16-35 f/2.8 CZ will be better?

Yes, it is

I'm wondering if the 28-70 f/2.8 will be up to it as well. It's pretty
sharp but not amazingly so.


I did not have one to try. My tests were a) very crude and quick,
ducking out of the window to shoot the street with different lenses, no
time to adjust or check many settings b) on mainly prototype gear.

I am still hoping to get a review camera with time for proper tests. I
am not very happy with being the only one of the press party who, becaue
I live local to the event, could be dropped out of the shooting
activities to reduce pressure on the limited bodies available!

David

--
Icon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB
Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange
St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL
VAT Reg No GB458101463
Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com
www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk -
www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk
Tel +44 1573 226032

David Kilpatrick wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/page2.asp

But the body is....plastic!

The body is solid magnesium alloy all round. I know, I've seen the
inside shells and held it.

Whatever the shortcomings of the camera may prove to be, it's firmly
aimed at the wealthy amateur who in the past bought Contax RTS or
Leica R4 etc - expensive excellent lenses, comfortable feel (not a
pro lump), amazing viewfinder and very fast response, plus of course
the biggest image around right now.

I tried a bunch of my own vintage lenses on it, to compare with the
new 16-35, 70-400mm etc and the results are interesting. My 28-75mm
KM seems to be really excellent with it. 17-35mm less so. 24-105mm D
- exceptionally sharp but bendy geometry.

I also tried some vintage-type Sony lenses - 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 -
don't bother - they don't cut it - CA and softness all round. 50mm
f1.4 - amazing. Very good indeed.

How was the wide angle corner performance? Vignetting?

No rela vignetting problem and no colour shifts.

Well, that is good news.

They have microlenses
and shading correction -

I don't like that... I assume you mean a f/w or s/w reduction of center
of sensor sensitivity?

the actual pixel wells at 5.9µm which makes
them relatively smaller for the area, indicating that microlenses may be
taking more space than usual.


The camera has the AA filter placed much higher off the sensor, and a
dual-level mirror which sort of lifts and rises in limited space,
despite being the biggest mirror of any DSLR. I know that placing the AA
filter forward will not change its impact on BF (the thickness of the
glass in an AA filter always produced BF in short focal length or wide
aperture lenses - work out the ray trace compared to a long lens) but it
will greatly reduce the visibility of dust.

BF?


[do you happen to know if they do a microlens correction for this?]

I'm sorry to hear that about the 20mm f/2.8 ... it is somehting I want
to use on the a900.

Perhaps the 16-35 f/2.8 CZ will be better?

Yes, it is

Damn. I'm having a hard time completing my lense collection as it is;
this will threaten my 85 f/1.4 purchase.

I'm wondering if the 28-70 f/2.8 will be up to it as well. It's
pretty sharp but not amazingly so.


I did not have one to try. My tests were a) very crude and quick,
ducking out of the window to shoot the street with different lenses, no
time to adjust or check many settings b) on mainly prototype gear.

I am still hoping to get a review camera with time for proper tests. I
am not very happy with being the only one of the press party who, becaue
I live local to the event, could be dropped out of the shooting
activities to reduce pressure on the limited bodies available!

Now, now. Next time put down your address as Glasgow.

Thanks!
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

In article ,
David Kilpatrick wrote:

plus of course the biggest
image around right now.

That won't last long.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

David, the sample pictures told me that whatever their method of
stabilization is, it might not be that good. I don't think the
pictures in the samples knocked me off my chair. Surely those few
pictures aren't enough of a benchmark for a camera but so far I'm not
impressed. AS far as the $3,000, if the image stabilization works
well (and just wasn't great for these samples) and given the camera
can produce the depth of colors produced by the new Nikons, at 24 mp,
full frame and buildt in stabilixation, that's a steal. But those are
big ifs.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:21:29 +0100, David Kilpatrick
wrote:

RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/SonyDSLRA900/page2.asp

But the body is....plastic!

The body is solid magnesium alloy all round. I know, I've seen the
inside shells and held it.

Whatever the shortcomings of the camera may prove to be, it's firmly
aimed at the wealthy amateur who in the past bought Contax RTS or Leica
R4 etc - expensive excellent lenses, comfortable feel (not a pro lump),
amazing viewfinder and very fast response, plus of course the biggest
image around right now.

I tried a bunch of my own vintage lenses on it, to compare with the new
16-35, 70-400mm etc and the results are interesting. My 28-75mm KM seems
to be really excellent with it. 17-35mm less so. 24-105mm D -
exceptionally sharp but bendy geometry.

I also tried some vintage-type Sony lenses - 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 -
don't bother - they don't cut it - CA and softness all round. 50mm f1.4
- amazing. Very good indeed.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:

The camera has the AA filter placed much higher off the sensor, and a
dual-level mirror which sort of lifts and rises in limited space,
despite being the biggest mirror of any DSLR. I know that placing the AA
filter forward will not change its impact on BF (the thickness of the
glass in an AA filter always produced BF in short focal length or wide
aperture lenses - work out the ray trace compared to a long lens) but it
will greatly reduce the visibility of dust.

Does this changed location affect resolution of detail?

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:

The camera has the AA filter placed much higher off the sensor, and a
dual-level mirror which sort of lifts and rises in limited space,
despite being the biggest mirror of any DSLR. I know that placing the AA
filter forward will not change its impact on BF (the thickness of the
glass in an AA filter always produced BF in short focal length or wide
aperture lenses - work out the ray trace compared to a long lens) but it
will greatly reduce the visibility of dust.

Does this changed location affect resolution of detail?

I'd still like to know what David's 'BF' is..? Anyone know?

And was the only reason to reduce dust visibility? I would have thought
that lifting the aa filter away from the sensor would potentially affect
its sensitivity to off-axis light and the associated issues (yeah, I
know, hotly debated..).

Then, QED, it could also affect QE..

(O:

Mark Thomas wrote:
[]
I'd still like to know what David's 'BF' is..? Anyone know?

Back focus?

David

David J Taylor wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
[]
I'd still like to know what David's 'BF' is..? Anyone know?

Back focus?


Yup, back focus. Putting a plane parallel glass in front of the sensor,
without a similar plane parallel glass placed identically in front of
the AF sensors, creates small focus errors. This is one of the few good
things about the Sigma SD9/10/14 - no AA filter, and the IR filter is
behind the lens, in front of the mirror, so its influence on focus is
constant for the sensor, AF sensor and focusing screen.

David