Last year, when Michael and I met with a Sony representative at a trade show, we were pretty psyched to hear about their upcoming full-frame DSLR, the Alpha A900.
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.
That is bad news indeed. Ever since I heard this camera would have 22+ megapixels, I pretty much counted it out. I do not need that many and all it would do is slow everything down...much like you guys talked about on the show the other day.
What REALLY caught my eye with this one, and something that Canon 5D and Nikon D700 simply fall WAY short on is the viewfinder. This Sony has 100% coverage (plus other really great viewfinder specs). Yikes! Only the full-sized professional Canons and Nikons pull that off. That alone makes me want this. I could deal with big file sizes, but this slowness is a real problem.
We look at everything else, but why do folks these days never even think or talk about how big that viewfinder is? That is so mucho important!
Posted by: Cooper Strange | September 17, 2008 at 08:39 PM
Scott-I love Lori too! I think her review proves definitively, once and for all, that it is not just all about the megapixels. i remember how excited people when when Sony announced this camera, thinking it would represent a breakthrough. A lot of people have been very surprised at what a thud this camera has arrived with.
Truly, low light sensitivity/high ISO performance is going to represent the next marketing vehicle which the camera manufacturers ride. And, in my opinion, rightfully so.
Arthur
Posted by: Arthur | October 02, 2008 at 05:43 PM