Sony 900

Well, even though it got their highly recommended distinction, I'm disappointed. The high ISO issue is a dealbreaker for me. I love the camera, but Sony's got to work on this one some more and come out with a revised model.

I couldn't care less for high ISO performance. I have a tripod. In film times most of us used Velvia and in a pinch Provia and in a very big pinch pushed it to ISO200. Now everybody wants noise free ISO6400. Most medium format backs don't go beyond 400 ISO. These cameras are not meant for sports or news photography. If you need high ISO choose a different camera. Nikon makes some very good ones. If you need the highest resolution, your choice is between this and the medium format backs, or the new Leica. When comparing prices, lens range, speed etc. the Sony wins hands down. Sure, the MF backs give even more resolution.

I find it silly that many people think that the Memory stick slot is useless. I use it as backup. It weighs nothing and costs some $30 for a 4Gb card. What harm can it possibly be to have a spare card in the body, immediately usable if the main card runs out? I don't use it as the main storage, I don't plan to use it, but it is there in case the normal 8Gb CF cards run out. I am very happy that the camera does not automatically switch to use the stick since I basically plan never to use it. (Though it is good to test once in a while that it works.)

Ilkka, with an image-stabilized body like this, you really don't need a tripod for most things, short of studio work. The reason high ISO performance is so important in weddings (which is my field) is because we have to shoot in very difficult natural lighting situations, handheld, and come away with clean images. Even fast lenses don't buy you all the low light performance you often need with weddings.

I'm not arguing with the resolution or anything else about the camera, it's a really sweet bit of technology, and I'd love to have one. I just wanted to see Sony come out with something that would really make Nikon/Canon take notice, and something that would beat their best models with resolution and high ISO.

I am a landscape guy so I can do with F/16 and a tripod. I also have couple of shift lenses that allow panoramas to be made, at 39 Mps, without moving the camera. But that does need a tripod.

In your old days, using Hasselblad on weddings, you must have been happy with ISO160 film, maybe 400 in a pinch. So why the need for 6400 now? Think of the Sony 900 as a (lower cost) digital Hasselblad for weddings, not a photo journalist camera. You should have another camera for high ISO use.

You cannot have it all. At least not yet. If you need maximum resolution , you must compromise on high ISO performance. If you need that, you must compromise on resolution.

I was surprised to see that the reviewer seems to think the AF was slow compared to other manufactures cameras. Minolta's were always slower than Canon but wth Sony being such a large company somehow one thinks they would have cracked that.

I never shot weddings with film (well, I did one and it was torture), much less a Hasselblad. We shoot weddings TOTALLY differently today than those old days. Our requirements for high ISO are much different than those days.

[[In your old days, using Hasselblad on weddings, you must have been happy with ISO160 film, maybe 400 in a pinch. So why the need for 6400 now?]]

In the old days, cars got 10 miles to the gallon. Now everyone wants 30, 40, even more?! Why can't they just be happy with the way things were?

I shoot landscapes with a tripod at the lowest available ISO setting. Based on the review, this camera is the best available DSLR - from any manufacturer - for my purposes. The new Canon 5DMkII is sure to impress, but for low ISO resolution I doubt it will best the Sony. My a900 is scheduled to arrive in a few days and and I cannot wait to put it through its paces. I only wish I could also afford the CZ 24-70 lens. Maybe Santa will bring one for Christmas.

Rob, I think everyone knows the answer to your fuel mileage question, your tongue firmly in cheek, I'm sure.

If I were shooting landscapes, I'd be right in Brett's corner, to be sure. But the huge file sizes of the A900 are a blessing and a curse for wedding shooters like me. Heck, I'm shooting an A700 now, and with JPEGs of 8-10 megs and RAW files of 19 megs, my computer strains to process them now. If I were to nearly double my file sizes with the A900, I don't know what I'd do with all that data, or where I'd get the post-processing time to crunch through 600-1000 images at a typical wedding. Even if I only shot 300 images, it would be painful sitting there trying to batch process those huge files. And, my clients are happy with what I provide now, so I think I'm sticking with the A700.

I know you can choose smaller resolution settings with the A900, but then, other than the full frame sensor, what advantage would I have with the A900?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't kick it out of my camera bag, but I just don't need this particular model right now, sweet though it is.