But in a video review of the soon-to-hit-the-shelves camera, Lori Grunin (who, by the way, I love) comes to what I think are some pretty devastating conclusions.
First, the positives. Lori liked the camera's menu navigation and general feel, although she noted that the camera+lens was a pretty heavy combination. She also praised the camera's excellent battery grip and showed off the very-cool accessory flash that swivels in all directions. It also has a couple of other new technologies that might or might not be useful in actual shooting conditions.
But in the most critical areas, the camera sounds troubled. Lori says the image quality is "nice," noting that it "didn't blow me away." You have to watch the video to hear just how weak that "nice" sounds. It's the same "nice" I use when I hang my four-year old's finger-painting, that most resembles colorful vomitus, on the refrigorator door. "That's 'nice' honey," I say, while thinking "well, at least it'll kill my appetite; maybe I'll lose weight."
Even worse, she noted that the A900 is "slow," but which she means "it takes a relatively long time to focus."
A DSLR that focuses slowly? Isn't speed one of the major benefits of a DSLR? Fast focus times with no shutter lag? WTF is the point of a slow DSLR? How many people only shoot landscapes?
On the positive side, Sony's bringing this bad boy in at a buck short of $3,000. That's a pretty good price for a 24.6MP full-frame DSLR. But, still, function is everything, and if this camera strikes other reviewers as exhibiting the same flaws Lori found, I think it's in trouble.