Need an opinion (Sony A850 owners please!)

[ematic]

I searched the forum, I read the online reviews, and I have a general idea about the Sony Alpha (a)850

I was looking into it because of the spectacular sensor and price point. I mean, yes I know, it has no video, the ISO "only" goes up to 6400 (although, honestly, I think I'd rather just have the proper lighting and such - you know what I mean :er: lol ), doesn't have the features of Nikons and Canons. I also know you won't get the perfect image resolution with Zeiss quality level glass, but that's aside.

However, my question is: Is this camera worth the money? Is there anything WRONG with it, that its not as popular as say, a Canon 5D MkII, or D700?

I mean, I am not sure if I will dive into it right away, but I am VERY much intrigued by the A850, as opposed to buying a Canon 7D for example (smaller sensor, and I don't think I will be shooting video that often. I think I would rather focus on image quality).

IF anyone has one and can shed some light on any drawbacks, or tell me why I should (OR SHOULD NOT ) avoid the body, speak up!

I would love hear some end-user feedback, or anyone's experience :mrgreen:

thanks!

 

[skieur]

The Sony A850 is certainly a great camera for $2,400 Canadian, if you are buying right away.

In the wings however, Sony has in-camera panorama shooting and stitching, in camera multi-shot and blending HDR, in camera multi-shooting to eliminate noise in low light, and full resolution HD video with autofocus, along with live view.

You might be tempted to wait, if these features are important to you.

skieur

 

[ematic]

I think it may be worth it to wait, if its getting some of those feature! (although, I prefer doing HDR on the computer, but the Video aspect is important to me....hence why I may just get a 7D for now, despite it not being a full frame )

 

[Garbz]

Is there anything WRONG with it, that its not as popular as say, a Canon 5D MkII, or D700?

Other than being made by a 2 bit company who screws users at every opportunity, loses the personal information of 77million customers, and has been in the business for a number of years I can count on my hand, rather than a number that my grandma can't even count on her birthday cake, nothing.

They seem to make great cameras for the price, but I would not touch Sony with a 10 ft pole, even with condom on the end.

 

[SJGordon]

Considering Sony bought out Minolta who had been making cameras since 1928, the claim that they have been in business for only a handful of years is pure BS.

Plus we are talking about Digital cameras here. Both Sony AND Minolta were some of the first into that market, beating Nikon by several months (If you don't count the 1st commercially available camera that really started the digital camera back in 1981 by taking "electronic stills"... the SONY Mavica. Which was 15 years before either Canon or Nikon.)

 

[SJGordon]

I also know you won't get the perfect image resolution with Zeiss quality level glass, but that's aside.

Actually the Zeiss lenses are some of the best on the market from ANY manufacturer.

 

[skieur]

Is there anything WRONG with it, that its not as popular as say, a Canon 5D MkII, or D700?

Other than being made by a 2 bit company who screws users at every opportunity, loses the personal information of 77million customers, and has been in the business for a number of years I can count on my hand, rather than a number that my grandma can't even count on her birthday cake, nothing..

You must have a awfully big hand to count 30 or so years on it. :lmao:

skieur

 

[Garbz]

Where did you get 30 years from? The first Sony DSLR is the A100 from 2006. They have never made a professional or prosumer digial still camera before this. Creating some chips, a sensor using Kodak's patents, and bolting them into a plastic shell does not put you in the professional still camera industry.

Sony entered a high end market by buying Minolta to make a quick buck. Nikon and Canon along with Olympus, Pentax, and a few others have a long history (+60 years) of photography supporting professionals throughout their careers. I mean Sony have a long history of supporting broadcasting professionals, yet after 5 years they still have yet to come up with anything like Nikon Professional Services or Canon Professional Services. So far they have shown their complete dedication to photography by buying another company and releasing a few products. They have no interest in supporting a photographer, just interested in selling them more stuff. (case in point, the alpha is the only SLR with a non-standard hotshoe for that extra bit of vendor lock-in)

Maybe my opinion of them will change in 23 years , but right now Sonys are still cheap but perfectly usable products from a really crap company.

 

[SJGordon]

Where did you get 30 years from? The first Sony DSLR is the A100 from 2006.

If the standard you are using is when a company put out it's first DSLR; then the film history of Nikon, Canon, and all other manufactures needs be tossed out as well... just as you are doing with Sony/Minolta. Who put out the first DSLR? Minolta in 1995, fully 4 years ahead of Nikon or Canon. Sony bought out Minolta, and to think they bought out just the name and then threw out all of Minoltas people and research then started from scratch without using the knowledge, or research already done by Minolta is just absurd. Yes, the first DSLR with the Sony name on it was the a100 in 2006; that does not mean it was the first attempt by the team that put it together. They were just working under a different corporate name.

I know nobody will ever change your mind, and I won't even try, some people just refuse to actually see the REAL facts and just cling to their own opinions. That is fine, but you should at least try to get some of the history correct and not just spew-forth 1/2 truths and opinion as facts. Yes Sony just started making SLR's, but the company they bought to make them under their name, has been making them for as long as either Nikon or Canon.

 

[Derrel]

The only thing wrong with the Sony A850 is the SONY name on it. If it happened to be made by Canon or Nikon, it would be a popular, well-respected camera, but Sony does not have the multiple decades' worth of users/customers that Minolta had. By the tgime Minolta was able to make a **successful, practical, quality** DSLR (ignoring their intitial 1995 entry model that was killed by the Nikon D1 and Fuji S1 models' superior imaging characteristics), the DSLR market had already sorted itself out. Minolta came onto the scene very late, as did Pentax.

As skieur was saying though, Sony has a new sensor or two in the works right now, and the A850's successor will probably have notably better features, and will undoubtedly have better performance at elevated ISO settings. The most-recent smaller sensors made by Sony, used in the new Pentax and the New Nikon D7000, have eclipsed ALL other small sensors, which makes the Sony A850's dismal performance at ISO 3,200 in a FF chip no less, simply inexcusable moving forward. While the A850 does go up to 6,400 ISO, that's a useless setting on it, and its image quality begins to deteriorate pretty badly earlier than it should/could, I think due to rather simple read-out electronics and poor noise reduction. Right NOW, the A850's sensor is something of a relic, having been surpassed, but not yet "replaced" in the market. And why has it not been replaced in the market? Honestly, I think it's because SONY devotes more time to sensor manufacturing for Nikon and Pentax than for itself; Nikon has apprx. 29.5% of the worldwide d-slr market share, Canon has like 48.5% or 49%, and Sony has 12.5% of the worldwide d-slr market share; Pentax might have 7%. Even so, JUST the Nikon sensor business is over DOUBLE the Sony camera sales business; add Pentax to it, and it's clear---Sony develops its sensors with an eye to supplying two other makers with "leading" technology that those other makers will want to buy. Right now the newest Pentax and Nikon bodies using the 16.2 MP 1.5x Sony sensor are the world's leaders at elevated ISO's...the same 24.5 MP sensel (sic, yes, the sensel, or light-sensitive part of a sensor) that SOny sells to NIkon for the NIkon D3x, is being OUT-performed, handily, by the Nikon D3x which has vastly better electronics than the SOny A900 and A850 bodies which use the same sensel, but without the state of the art electronics that Nikon has developed. This is what I mean that the only thing "wrong" with the A850 is its SONY name...Sony cannot afford to alienate Nikon and Pentax, because a huge portion of Sony's sensor-making business depends on sales to those two companies.

 

[kassad]

What type of photography are you doing?

 

[skieur]

The only thing wrong with the Sony A850 is the SONY name on it. If it happened to be made by Canon or Nikon, it would be a popular, well-respected camera, but Sony does not have the multiple decades' worth of users/customers that Minolta had. By the tgime Minolta was able to make a **successful, practical, quality** DSLR (ignoring their intitial 1995 entry model that was killed by the Nikon D1 and Fuji S1 models' superior imaging characteristics), the DSLR market had already sorted itself out. Minolta came onto the scene very late, as did Pentax.

As skieur was saying though, Sony has a new sensor or two in the works right now, and the A850's successor will probably have notably better features, and will undoubtedly have better performance at elevated ISO settings. The most-recent smaller sensors made by Sony, used in the new Pentax and the New Nikon D7000, have eclipsed ALL other small sensors, which makes the Sony A850's dismal performance at ISO 3,200 in a FF chip no less, simply inexcusable moving forward. While the A850 does go up to 6,400 ISO, that's a useless setting on it, and its image quality begins to deteriorate pretty badly earlier than it should/could, I think due to rather simple read-out electronics and poor noise reduction. Right NOW, the A850's sensor is something of a relic, having been surpassed, but not yet "replaced" in the market. And why has it not been replaced in the market? Honestly, I think it's because SONY devotes more time to sensor manufacturing for Nikon and Pentax than for itself; Nikon has apprx. 29.5% of the worldwide d-slr market share, Canon has like 48.5% or 49%, and Sony has 12.5% of the worldwide d-slr market share; Pentax might have 7%. Even so, JUST the Nikon sensor business is over DOUBLE the Sony camera sales business; add Pentax to it, and it's clear---Sony develops its sensors with an eye to supplying two other makers with "leading" technology that those other makers will want to buy. Right now the newest Pentax and Nikon bodies using the 16.2 MP 1.5x Sony sensor are the world's leaders at elevated ISO's...the same 24.5 MP sensel (sic, yes, the sensel, or light-sensitive part of a sensor) that SOny sells to NIkon for the NIkon D3x, is being OUT-performed, handily, by the Nikon D3x which has vastly better electronics than the SOny A900 and A850 bodies which use the same sensel, but without the state of the art electronics that Nikon has developed. This is what I mean that the only thing "wrong" with the A850 is its SONY name...Sony cannot afford to alienate Nikon and Pentax, because a huge portion of Sony's sensor-making business depends on sales to those two companies.

Excellent points. In the end it becomes what is most important: the brand name and company reputation, cost versus image quality, or the features which may not be on other cameras in the same price range.

In comparing images side by side, I have found that no DSLR camera is particularly good at high ISOs. Canon tends to go for sharpness but ends up with increased noise to get there. Nikon goes for less noise, but sacrifices some sharpness to get to that result. Sony in its new sensors seems to be taking a different approach of blending multiple shots at 10 shots per second to reduce noise.

Of course, if you do not do much really low light shooting, how much does it really matter to you?

skieur

 

[jrobert]

I own lesser Digital cameras then I used to own in the film variety. I loved to use Minoltas in the old days. I know that Canon and Nikon make fine cameras. But the disparaging remarks I see now and then about Sony products make me smile. Sony produce marvelous cameras. The thing is what matters, is the final image. Put the fantastic Zeiss lenses on the Sony even the lowly A100 and you have great images. I have had all the brands going and all to me are very good. Including Sony. If snob value matters then buy a Canon Eos5 iii with your L lenses,But if the image matters most get a Sony and fab lens on it and you won't be disappointed. I have a friend who still uses a Zenit B camera from the 1960's and has Takumar lenses , and he gets marvelous photos. It is a the end of the day, a personal choice. The A850 is a great camera, not a perfect camera but if you get one I am almost sure that you will be over the moon. Low light is a factor but don't you love the grain that even 400 ASA film use to give you?