that 50mm f/1.7 is a bloody amazing lens. i scored mine with a maxxum 5000 along with the 70-210 you have and an 28mm f/2.8 for $20 at a garage sale. Been shooting those lenses for years with the minolta maxxum and my a200, just bought an a900 this week and excited to shoot it when it arrives.
Thank you for your very nice comment! I do try to provide my honest opinions on gear, and the hobby itself. Comments like yours give me the shot in the arm I need sometimes to keep it up. I totally agree with your assessment of today's tech. Within any given format, compact, m4/3, APS-C, full-frame, the offerings are almost 100% crazy good. When non-photo-geeks ask me for suggestions, I start with "cameras are so good today, just buy one -- it won't make much difference which one you get".
I *think*they are mostly manufactured by Cosina. Some are still made in Germany. There was an M-mount 85/2 that was a German lens, I believe. They may have stopped manufacture on that, though. It's Zeiss' designs and coatings that make them special, IMO.
I went the same route as you, as I had a Minolta film camera and an early 5D. Moved onto Sony with APSC bodies, but managed to get an A850 FF body two years ago for £350 with less than 10,000 actuations. I am now discovering a lot of M42 manual lenses that have great glass in them.
Thanks for your kind comment. I would agree that Sony's marketing is not that great, simply because you say DSLR and people think Canikon. Sony is huge enough that they could have affected that, I think. That said, I don't mind being on the "think different" platform in cameras :-)
Thanks for the review, because I am in a similar boat (I began in film photography (slr + tlr) and made the move to dslr with a Sony A. I have lenses (Sony + Minolta) for photography, but I haven't gotten into the Full Frame Photography. The features of a900 I'm quite alright with and the system is easy to learn. Thanks - Your video was helpful.
Arel Lumbo l still have my old Minolta lenses 20plus years and work perfectly on Sony Alpha 850. which includes 35-200xi electric zoom lens, 24-105D, 28-135.
All very valid points. Full-frame cameras tend to be larger and heavier, too, so if you value a light carry crop sensors are a good way to go. I need to add an annotation about the A900's lack of live view and video, too. I'm keeping my A55 for these very reasons. Thanks!
gawd I want a full frame digital for soo long.. I've been waiting way too long to get a digital!! I wish Contax G series would be rebooted digitally , that's a dream! anyway very happy for your purchase and I am very interested in seing some black and white results and stuff
Thank you Mike for the "down to earth" approach, very refreshing, especially in the light of the fact that Sony purchased Minolta partially in the fact that there where millions of Minolta lenses that could migrate to a DSLR with the same lens connect. And they say Sony's marketing isn't great, yeah right.Cheers Lee.
You got an excellent deal on the A900. Though this camera is a bit dated due to its noise handling, you cannot go wrong at the price you paid. I loved using the A900, and will be getting the A99 soon. Under the right conditions the A900 produces amazing images with CZ glass. The A77 and A900 are indeed comparable in noise handling as you expect. After ISO 1600 the noise level becomes high quickly. The LCD scratch can be removed with polish.
Do you still use the A900? Sounds like you do from your new A7ii video. How are the stills from this aging beast? I assume it must be shot at lower ISO (800 or less) due to sensor/processing tech age, or is that not the case? Seems like a neat "retro" DSLR. Almost film camera like. In a way the build reminds me of my Bronica RF645.
I think you have it about right. 800 and below is good on the A900. It's actually still a pretty relevant camera, at 24mp, excellent quality in good light, and a very nice build and controls. It's obviously a pro body. I'll probably keep it around for a while, "just in case".
How come you go for sony stuff? Why not nikon or canon? I wish contax still was around and made DSLRs. I also wish voigtlander or konica were still around to make a m-mount digital camera at a consumer level range.
It's a long story. I had a Canon 30D and a bunch of nice lenses for it years ago. I sold it all when I fell in love with (and spent a bunch of money on) the Leica M8 and lenses. But eventually, I wanted something with SLR features again, but small, and I got turned on to the Sony A55, which is very small and has nice video features, etc. I got several inexpensive Minolta lenses for that body. So, when I saw the good deal on the A900 I leapt on it because it's full frame and I had lenses.
Thanks. Yeah, I figure the camera is as good as it ever was (which is great). I just don't compare to the latest cameras. Luckily the scratch isn't really that visible when the LCD is actually on. I've put a Schott glass protector on it already, so I won't bother polishing the scratch out.
Great review and good to see an older, but worthy camera get the credit it deserves. I have an a700 and it's great (although old) and I waited for the a99 to come out because I knew the a900 used price would come down. Now I just have to scrounge the cash to buy one. The Minolta lenses are great and a great bargain. One often overlooked lens is the Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. Great lens, especially on a full frame camera and it can be had for under $100. Very sharp. You might check it out.
I have a wide variety of lenses for Sony which include Carl Zeiss and the rebranded Sony G (Minolta G) lenses and they are GRAEAT!! My questions to you is I own a Sony a77 and am looking to upgrade to Full Frame. I saw this great deal for an a900 but wanted to know if you think there is a major difference in low light situations between the a900 and a newer a77? Thanks in advance and welcome to Sony!
Glad you liked the review. Thanks for the lens recommendation. I usually hate variable max aperture lenses, but that's a pretty useful zoom range and a nice price :-). I'll have to keep an eye out for one.
It would be a wonderful thing to have the actual G2 as a digital camera in full-frame. Would be a world-killer. It has to be possible, does it not? After all, Sony just trotted out the RX1 in that tiny body. Seems like a lens mount could be added, getting the depth to around that of the G2, and room for the optical viewfinder makes the RX1 around the height of the G2, and so-on.
That's true, the Sonnar design is a common one. However, you don't find a 50mm Sonnar made like the Zeiss with its (few) modern qualities. My suspicion is that Zeiss lenses are made much like the VC lenses, but with the Zeiss special-sauce coatings, formulas, and possibly higher-end glass elements here and there. VC's own barrels, etc., are very good, IMO, so Zeiss is not ahead of the pack there.
Oh, I envy your Zeiss and G lenses. I had a Minolta 200mm f/2.8 G prime lens for a short time (I bought it at an estate sale, and flipped it for 2x the price). It rocked. I can't really compare noise between the A900 and A77. The A900 is relatively old tech, but I haven't read anything great about the A77's low-light performance, either. They're probably just comparable (?). Better to read the sites and ask on forums, I think. I'd say ISO 1600 is the limit for the A900, in general.
oh no , the half size sensor kept me away...Also the 45mm Zeiss glass on the contax g was one of my favourite glasses of all time! I am not a fan of a 50mm lens becoming a 70mm and having to think of it like that..All though the x mount is new so I would have to invest in new lens hmm
yeah like you said the coating in zeiss is definetly much different than the cosina glasses..If you think about it the 3000 dollar leica glass has a plastic focus tab and the cosina voigtlander focus tab is pure metal..I mean I know this has nothing to do with image quality , but the build quality from cosina is fantastic, you won't find that in a nikon or canon factory for sure.
Believe me, if you shoot raw and then use Adobe software A900 sensor is still up to date in ISO100-3200 range. Even if noise can be bit higher you still got better colour accuracy. And A900 sensor is 1-2 EV better in any comparison from A77. The thing that is better in new cameras is jpg engine noise handling. But when you shoot raw it doesn't matter at all.
ISO 1600 of A900 is really good in terms of colour/detail accuracy. I've seen shots taken with A77 at ISO400 - 800 and they weren't better in any case.
That's a great position for you to be in -- having great gear that nobody else knows is great. It makes your gear inexpensive, too :-). I'm envious of your 135 SFT. That's a pretty cool lens. I owned the 200/2.8G for a short time. Awesome lens. However, it was an estate sale find and I couldn't resist doubling my money on eBay. :-\
15June2014 What's the story with the noise reduction being locked onto all RAW and or JPEGs? I can't believe this would not be an option you can shut off but I hear NR is always on even in RAW. Is this true and if so how does the A900 or A850 handle night time stuff i.e. stars, city lights or black stuff? I really am not sure what creates noise in the first place.. Is it just High ISO or Sensor's ability to handle such or both? Can the noise thing be handled simply by using a tripod and keeping the ISO down around 100? With regards to the NR being locked in this camera's RAW output - is this a big enough issue to merit my concern? Thanks in advance for any information and clarification you provide.
Yikes, sorry I didn't reply to this sooner. I would be surprised if NR is turned off in RAW, but I don't know. What creates noise is essentially the side effect of amplification. Believe it or not, a digital camera is an analog data collector. Think of turning up the ISO like turning up a guitar amplifier. As you turn it up you hear more noise (well, on most I've heard, anyway). The sensor is similar, except you see the noise. This is an oversimplification, but gets the point across, I hope.
I'm hunting around for one of these on eBay right now because my Sony A33 is annoying the hell out of me. Surprisingly, this looks a lot like the Minolta Dynax 7D. I would have thought that Sony would have made it more Sony-like.
+thelongslowgoodbye I don't think there was a "Sony-like", yet, when they introduced the A900. Good luck with your hunt. I just sold mine on eBay about a month ago. They are still great cameras.
Yeah I agree...I am just curious to this because Cosina has a very traditional type of lens factory , they even melt their own glass..The sonnar design has been copied over in the years so much..
yeah!!I guess the rx1 showed that a full frame compact digital is a reality..as how the konica c35 is a compact full frame for film..I know for a fact that if there was a contax g2 full frame digital , it would not only revive the whole contax name again , but become a killer seller..
I recently purchased a mint (2500 shutter count) a850 body expressly to mount my 5 Minolta AF lenses while I realize an truly excellent set of 6 Zeiss primes are available for US$23,500. Ouch! I'm A-OK with these 35 year old workhorse quality lenses and all for $1000 in total.
There are really three kinds of Zeiss today... 1.Zeiss lenses made in Germany by Zeiss to there own designs. 2.Zeiss lenses made in Japan by Cosina to mostly Zeiss optical designs. 3.Zeiss lenses made by Sony to mostly Sony designs with some Zeiss input.
It sucks, but not bad enough to kill it for me. After all, you'll get best performance with a Sony-branded flash anyway. Of course, if you want to run triggers then there's plenty of suck. Now they've gone to a regular hotshoe on the A99. Everyone is pissed that they have to buy new flashes or run converters to mount their Sony flash :-D.
Or, put another way: why not Sony? They make the sensors in the Canons and Nikons. Not really being serious here, and just having some fun. I actually never wanted a Sony before the A55 -- I always thought, "who would buy photography gear from a personal electronics giant?". But in reality, Sony bought Minolta, and that's essentially what you're getting when you buy a Sony, so that makes it all OK. In the end, shoot what makes you happy.
Good review. I got a A850 pretty much for the same reasons, I had Minolta film lenses, then a KM 7d, then an A33. I also picked up an A100 but sold it. I have a lot of Minolta glass at this point, can't afford Zeiss really. I like the 28-135 and the 24-85 particularly for the A850. I have a beercan, but I like the 75-300(new) for longer reach. For a flash I picked up a 5400xi super cheap, use it in manual mode, its really easy to set that up, I use the three position custom settings for outdoor, low light and flash, gets me where I want to be real quick. I agree that right now the A850 and A900, if in good shape, are a great bargain. I was lucky, got my 850 in almost new condition with only about 4000 actuations.
Thanks for your comment. I used my A900 yesterday for a quick picture of my audio setup. I hadn't used it in a while and was kind of giddy attaching it to the tripod: "Oh yeah -- I have a full-frame DSLR!". It is a great platform.
To be correct. Zeiss huge manufacture,but they don't make lenses for Sony!!! Zeiss licenses its technology to third-party companies. Names include Hasselblad, Rollei, Yashica, Sony... So Sony actually make them for Sony cameras uses Zeiss technology.
Another thing I love about nearly any Sony product (that you didn't talk about, oddly enough): Reliability!
that 50mm f/1.7 is a bloody amazing lens. i scored mine with a maxxum 5000 along with the 70-210 you have and an 28mm f/2.8 for $20 at a garage sale. Been shooting those lenses for years with the minolta maxxum and my a200, just bought an a900 this week and excited to shoot it when it arrives.
Thank you for your very nice comment! I do try to provide my honest opinions on gear, and the hobby itself. Comments like yours give me the shot in the arm I need sometimes to keep it up.
I totally agree with your assessment of today's tech. Within any given format, compact, m4/3, APS-C, full-frame, the offerings are almost 100% crazy good. When non-photo-geeks ask me for suggestions, I start with "cameras are so good today, just buy one -- it won't make much difference which one you get".
I *think*they are mostly manufactured by Cosina. Some are still made in Germany. There was an M-mount 85/2 that was a German lens, I believe. They may have stopped manufacture on that, though. It's Zeiss' designs and coatings that make them special, IMO.
I went the same route as you, as I had a Minolta film camera and an early 5D. Moved onto Sony with APSC bodies, but managed to get an A850 FF body two years ago for £350 with less than 10,000 actuations. I am now discovering a lot of M42 manual lenses that have great glass in them.
Thanks for your kind comment. I would agree that Sony's marketing is not that great, simply because you say DSLR and people think Canikon. Sony is huge enough that they could have affected that, I think.
That said, I don't mind being on the "think different" platform in cameras :-)
Thanks for the review, because I am in a similar boat (I began in film photography (slr + tlr) and made the move to dslr with a Sony A. I have lenses (Sony + Minolta) for photography, but I haven't gotten into the Full Frame Photography. The features of a900 I'm quite alright with and the system is easy to learn. Thanks - Your video was helpful.
Arel Lumbo l still have my old Minolta lenses 20plus years and work perfectly on Sony Alpha 850. which includes 35-200xi electric zoom lens, 24-105D, 28-135.
All very valid points. Full-frame cameras tend to be larger and heavier, too, so if you value a light carry crop sensors are a good way to go.
I need to add an annotation about the A900's lack of live view and video, too.
I'm keeping my A55 for these very reasons.
Thanks!
Don't you have a Fuji XP1? That is the modern, digital G2, IMO. It's crop-sensor, but still fantastic.
gawd I want a full frame digital for soo long.. I've been waiting way too long to get a digital!!
I wish Contax G series would be rebooted digitally , that's a dream!
anyway very happy for your purchase and I am very interested in seing some black and white results and stuff
Thank you Mike for the "down to earth" approach, very refreshing, especially in the light of the fact that Sony purchased Minolta partially in the fact that there where millions of Minolta lenses that could migrate to a DSLR with the same lens connect. And they say Sony's marketing isn't great, yeah right.Cheers Lee.
You got an excellent deal on the A900. Though this camera is a bit dated due to its noise handling, you cannot go wrong at the price you paid. I loved using the A900, and will be getting the A99 soon. Under the right conditions the A900 produces amazing images with CZ glass. The A77 and A900 are indeed comparable in noise handling as you expect. After ISO 1600 the noise level becomes high quickly. The LCD scratch can be removed with polish.
Do you still use the A900? Sounds like you do from your new A7ii video. How are the stills from this aging beast? I assume it must be shot at lower ISO (800 or less) due to sensor/processing tech age, or is that not the case?
Seems like a neat "retro" DSLR. Almost film camera like. In a way the build reminds me of my Bronica RF645.
I think you have it about right. 800 and below is good on the A900. It's actually still a pretty relevant camera, at 24mp, excellent quality in good light, and a very nice build and controls. It's obviously a pro body. I'll probably keep it around for a while, "just in case".
Most Minolta lenses are really great. Way underrated.
Try 85 1.4 and 200 2.8 APO, even the 20 2.8 is quite good.
50 and 100 2.8 macros are very sharp.
Are Zeiss's made in kyochera's old factory? or by cosina mostly?? I wonder where the modern ones are made in..
How come you go for sony stuff? Why not nikon or canon? I wish contax still was around and made DSLRs. I also wish voigtlander or konica were still around to make a m-mount digital camera at a consumer level range.
It's a long story. I had a Canon 30D and a bunch of nice lenses for it years ago. I sold it all when I fell in love with (and spent a bunch of money on) the Leica M8 and lenses.
But eventually, I wanted something with SLR features again, but small, and I got turned on to the Sony A55, which is very small and has nice video features, etc. I got several inexpensive Minolta lenses for that body.
So, when I saw the good deal on the A900 I leapt on it because it's full frame and I had lenses.
Thanks. Yeah, I figure the camera is as good as it ever was (which is great). I just don't compare to the latest cameras.
Luckily the scratch isn't really that visible when the LCD is actually on. I've put a Schott glass protector on it already, so I won't bother polishing the scratch out.
Great review and good to see an older, but worthy camera get the credit it deserves. I have an a700 and it's great (although old) and I waited for the a99 to come out because I knew the a900 used price would come down. Now I just have to scrounge the cash to buy one.
The Minolta lenses are great and a great bargain. One often overlooked lens is the Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. Great lens, especially on a full frame camera and it can be had for under $100. Very sharp. You might check it out.
I have a wide variety of lenses for Sony which include Carl Zeiss and the rebranded Sony G (Minolta G) lenses and they are GRAEAT!! My questions to you is I own a Sony a77 and am looking to upgrade to Full Frame. I saw this great deal for an a900 but wanted to know if you think there is a major difference in low light situations between the a900 and a newer a77? Thanks in advance and welcome to Sony!
Glad you liked the review. Thanks for the lens recommendation. I usually hate variable max aperture lenses, but that's a pretty useful zoom range and a nice price :-). I'll have to keep an eye out for one.
It would be a wonderful thing to have the actual G2 as a digital camera in full-frame. Would be a world-killer. It has to be possible, does it not? After all, Sony just trotted out the RX1 in that tiny body. Seems like a lens mount could be added, getting the depth to around that of the G2, and room for the optical viewfinder makes the RX1 around the height of the G2, and so-on.
That's true, the Sonnar design is a common one. However, you don't find a 50mm Sonnar made like the Zeiss with its (few) modern qualities.
My suspicion is that Zeiss lenses are made much like the VC lenses, but with the Zeiss special-sauce coatings, formulas, and possibly higher-end glass elements here and there. VC's own barrels, etc., are very good, IMO, so Zeiss is not ahead of the pack there.
I love my A850~♥
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS SHIRT!!! I HAVE TO HAVE ONE!!!
Oh, I envy your Zeiss and G lenses. I had a Minolta 200mm f/2.8 G prime lens for a short time (I bought it at an estate sale, and flipped it for 2x the price). It rocked.
I can't really compare noise between the A900 and A77. The A900 is relatively old tech, but I haven't read anything great about the A77's low-light performance, either. They're probably just comparable (?). Better to read the sites and ask on forums, I think.
I'd say ISO 1600 is the limit for the A900, in general.
for my sony a850,
Iso 400 great
Iso 800 barely exceptable
Iso 1600 for B/W picture only with grainy texture
oh no , the half size sensor kept me away...Also the 45mm Zeiss glass on the contax g was one of my favourite glasses of all time! I am not a fan of a 50mm lens becoming a 70mm and having to think of it like that..All though the x mount is new so I would have to invest in new lens hmm
yeah like you said the coating in zeiss is definetly much different than the cosina glasses..If you think about it the 3000 dollar leica glass has a plastic focus tab and the cosina voigtlander focus tab is pure metal..I mean I know this has nothing to do with image quality , but the build quality from cosina is fantastic, you won't find that in a nikon or canon factory for sure.
Talk to us about your A55 Sony.
Oh wow, that was long, long ago! I had a lot of fun with it, and it introduced me to electronic viewfinders.
Believe me, if you shoot raw and then use Adobe software A900 sensor is still up to date in ISO100-3200 range. Even if noise can be bit higher you still got better colour accuracy.
And A900 sensor is 1-2 EV better in any comparison from A77. The thing that is better in new cameras is jpg engine noise handling. But when you shoot raw it doesn't matter at all.
ISO 1600 of A900 is really good in terms of colour/detail accuracy. I've seen shots taken with A77 at ISO400 - 800 and they weren't better in any case.
That's a great position for you to be in -- having great gear that nobody else knows is great. It makes your gear inexpensive, too :-).
I'm envious of your 135 SFT. That's a pretty cool lens. I owned the 200/2.8G for a short time. Awesome lens. However, it was an estate sale find and I couldn't resist doubling my money on eBay. :-\
15June2014
What's the story with the noise reduction being locked onto all RAW and or JPEGs? I can't believe this would not be an option you can shut off but I hear NR is always on even in RAW. Is this true and if so how does the A900 or A850 handle night time stuff i.e. stars, city lights or black stuff?
I really am not sure what creates noise in the first place.. Is it just High ISO or Sensor's ability to handle such or both? Can the noise thing be handled simply by using a tripod and keeping the ISO down around 100? With regards to the NR being locked in this camera's RAW output - is this a big enough issue to merit my concern?
Thanks in advance for any information and clarification you provide.
Yikes, sorry I didn't reply to this sooner. I would be surprised if NR is turned off in RAW, but I don't know.
What creates noise is essentially the side effect of amplification. Believe it or not, a digital camera is an analog data collector. Think of turning up the ISO like turning up a guitar amplifier. As you turn it up you hear more noise (well, on most I've heard, anyway). The sensor is similar, except you see the noise. This is an oversimplification, but gets the point across, I hope.
It's a setting in the menus to turn it off.
I'm hunting around for one of these on eBay right now because my Sony A33 is annoying the hell out of me. Surprisingly, this looks a lot like the Minolta Dynax 7D. I would have thought that Sony would have made it more Sony-like.
+thelongslowgoodbye I don't think there was a "Sony-like", yet, when they introduced the A900. Good luck with your hunt. I just sold mine on eBay about a month ago. They are still great cameras.
Yeah I agree...I am just curious to this because Cosina has a very traditional type of lens factory , they even melt their own glass..The sonnar design has been copied over in the years so much..
yeah!!I guess the rx1 showed that a full frame compact digital is a reality..as how the konica c35 is a compact full frame for film..I know for a fact that if there was a contax g2 full frame digital , it would not only revive the whole contax name again , but become a killer seller..
I recently purchased a mint (2500 shutter count) a850 body expressly to mount my 5 Minolta AF lenses while I realize an truly excellent set of 6 Zeiss primes are available for US$23,500. Ouch! I'm A-OK with these 35 year old workhorse quality lenses and all for $1000 in total.
There are really three kinds of Zeiss today...
1.Zeiss lenses made in Germany by Zeiss to there own designs.
2.Zeiss lenses made in Japan by Cosina to mostly Zeiss optical designs.
3.Zeiss lenses made by Sony to mostly Sony designs with some Zeiss input.
It sucks, but not bad enough to kill it for me. After all, you'll get best performance with a Sony-branded flash anyway. Of course, if you want to run triggers then there's plenty of suck.
Now they've gone to a regular hotshoe on the A99. Everyone is pissed that they have to buy new flashes or run converters to mount their Sony flash :-D.
Or, put another way: why not Sony? They make the sensors in the Canons and Nikons. Not really being serious here, and just having some fun. I actually never wanted a Sony before the A55 -- I always thought, "who would buy photography gear from a personal electronics giant?". But in reality, Sony bought Minolta, and that's essentially what you're getting when you buy a Sony, so that makes it all OK.
In the end, shoot what makes you happy.
Good review. I got a A850 pretty much for the same reasons, I had Minolta film lenses, then a KM 7d, then an A33. I also picked up an A100 but sold it. I have a lot of Minolta glass at this point, can't afford Zeiss really. I like the 28-135 and the 24-85 particularly for the A850. I have a beercan, but I like the 75-300(new) for longer reach. For a flash I picked up a 5400xi super cheap, use it in manual mode, its really easy to set that up, I use the three position custom settings for outdoor, low light and flash, gets me where I want to be real quick. I agree that right now the A850 and A900, if in good shape, are a great bargain. I was lucky, got my 850 in almost new condition with only about 4000 actuations.
Thanks for your comment. I used my A900 yesterday for a quick picture of my audio setup. I hadn't used it in a while and was kind of giddy attaching it to the tripod: "Oh yeah -- I have a full-frame DSLR!". It is a great platform.
Got it on eBay.
To be correct. Zeiss huge manufacture,but they don't make lenses for Sony!!! Zeiss licenses its technology to third-party companies. Names include Hasselblad, Rollei, Yashica, Sony... So Sony actually make them for Sony cameras uses Zeiss technology.
i love sony but the reverse hot-shoe killed it for me :-/
... for a badass reviewer ;-).
.